Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member, Prem Narain, Member
Jotica Sehgal —Complainant
versus
Parsvnath Developers Limited —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1682 of 2016
Decided on 7.3.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr Vivek Malik, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint filed with an inflated claim to come within jurisdiction of National Commission cannot be countenanced.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Real estate—Booking of residential flat—Denial of possession—Complainant has filed consumer complaint with an inflated claim to come within jurisdiction of National Commission—Even in legal notice to opposite party complainant had only asked for termination of agreement and refund of Rs. 47,20,996.50 with 24% interest—However, in prayer clause they have added prayer of Rs. 97,13,250/-, i.e., difference between market value of flat and Rs.5 Lakhs towards mental agony—In view of Section 21 (a) (i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, instant complaint does not fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission—Instant complaint has been filed with a clear attempt to inflate value of relief which amounts to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit hierarchy of Consumer Fora—Complaint dismissed with liberty to complainant to file a fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Fora. (Paras 3 and 6)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had decided to buy a residential property after undertaking a recce. The father of the complainant desired to book a flat with the respondent in a project Parsvnath Privilege, Greater Noida. Complainant’s father then executed the flat buyers agreement on 13.06.2007 whereby Flat no. T 1 – 703, in Tower no. T 1, with a total cost of Rs. 52,86,750/-. The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant after the expiry of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction of the particular block in which the flat was located, failing which the respondent would pay a sum of Rs.5 per sq. ft of the super area of the flat per month for the period of delay. Subsequently, the name of the complainant was substituted in place of the father of the complainant on 13.06.2007.
2. On execution of the said agreement, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,21,687/-. In addition to this she paid the following amounts:
“1. Direct the respondent to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.1,49,18,347.5 which includes Rs.47,20,996.50 as the principal amount which the respondent is liable to pay the complainant for in respect of allotment of a flat in the said project plus Rs.1,01.,97,351/- being the simple interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount till the filing of the present complaint;
2. Direct the respondent to pay Rs.97,13,250/-, i.e., the difference between the market value of the flat and the cost of the flat;
3. Direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as costs towards mental agony and harassment;
4. Direct the respondent to pay legal costs including but not restricted to cost of the pleader;
5. Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the interest of justice.”
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the argument on maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction as the cost of service was less than rupees one crore. It was obvious from the prayer that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint with an inflated claim to come within the jurisdiction of the National Commission. Even the legal notice dated 10.08.2016 to the opposite party the complainant had only asked for termination of the agreement and refund of Rs.47,20,996.50 with interest @ 24% per annum from the dates on which the amounts were paid, till the date on which the dues were finally cleared. However, in the prayer clause, they have added a prayer of Rs.97,13,250/-, i.e., difference between the market value of the flat and Rs.5 lakh towards mental agony.
4. A coordinate Bench of this Commission in a recent judgment in the matter of Muneesh Malthora vs Era Land Marks (India) Ltd., in Consumer Complaint no. 1268 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2015 held as under:
“The scheme of Consumer Protection Act provides for the hierarchy of Consumer Foras, namely, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Act has specifically demarcated the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras at aforesaid three levels to entertain the original consumer complaint. Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Act provides that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakh but does not exceed rupees one crore. Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act provides that National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, exceeds rupees one crore.
2. Recently we have experienced a trend
