IMPORTANT POINT
Developer is bound to honour Default Clause contained in agreement.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Though the complainant has filed affidavit by way of evidence, the opposite party has not filed such an affidavit. The right of the OP to file its affidavit by way of evidence, therefore, stands closed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project, namely, ‘Unitech Verve’, which the opposite party was to develop on Plot No.11, Sector Pi-II of Greater Noida and an apartment No.1003 measuring 1588 sq.ft was allotted to him for a total consideration of Rs. 58,84,804/-. As per clause 4(a) of the terms of allotment, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered within 36 months. The possession having not been given, the complainant is before this Commission seeking refund of the amount of Rs.53,07,180/- which he has paid to the opposite party along with compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum, besides compensation for mental agony and the cost of litigation.

3. The complaint has been opposed by the opposite party which has taken a preliminary objection that since the agreed sale consideration was less than Rs.1 crore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, the complaint has been resisted by the opposite party on the very same grounds which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints including Consumer Complaint No.479 of 2015 –Alka Agrawal & Vani Rao Rangaraj Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters decided on 16.9.2016 , CC No.708 of 2015 – Rama Sahdev Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. decided on 16.9.2016 and CC No.535 of 2015 – Ravi Marwah & Mrs. Aarty Marwah Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. and CC No.536 of 2015 – Amit Bhatia & Mrs. Bhawna Bhatia Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. decided on 20.5.2016.

“3. The learned counsel for the OP submits that since the agreed sale consideration was only Rs.58,84,804/- the complaint ought to have been filed before the District Forum. She further submits that even if interest @ 10% per annum is added to the said amount, the resultant figure would be less than Rs.1 crore. However, I find no merit in this contention. The pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the averments made in the complaint unless the claim is shown to be highly exaggerated and fanciful, made only with a view to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular forum. This Commission has, in the past, awarded compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum. Therefore, the claim for compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a., cannot be said to be highly exaggerated or fanciful so as to deserve outright rejection of the complaint. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that this Commission lacks the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Kapil Kher states that even if compensation in the form of interest @ 10% per annum is added to the agreed sale consideration of Rs.58,84,804/-, the resultant figure would be more than Rs.1 crore.”

4. The following was the view taken by this Commission in Ravi Marwah (supra) and Amit Bhatia (supra):

“4. The learned counsel for the complainants has drawn our attention of the decisions of this Commission in Dewan Ashwani & Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.282 of 2012, wherein in a complaint relating to the booking made by the complainants in this very project i.e. Unitech Verve in Sector Pi-II of Greater Noida, this Commission, after rejecting all the contentions advanced by the opposite party, directed the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till realization. The complainants therein were also paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by them at the h