Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Sunil Bhasin —Complainant
versus
Suruchi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1169 of 2018
Decided on 4.9.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: In person
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the matter, the same is liable to be dismissed to be presented in appropriate forum. Time spent in court having no jurisdiction should not be counted for the purpose of limitation.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Complaint—The complaint booked a flat from the O.P society who was allotted a 2 BHK Flat No.73 after he was found qualified as per the rules of allotment—The complainant had paid Rs. 7,29,369/- for flat—He further paid small amount as demanded by the society till the year 2008—The society did not give the possession to the complainant for a long time and finally the possession was given on 31.05.20016—Hence, complaint was filed for recovery of interest on the amounts paid, compensation for the delay in handing over the possession, costs etc.,—Heard the complainant at the admission stage—Upon perusing the documents and calculating the amounts claimed, it is found that the value of the complaint is not One crore or above and hence, the complaint is dismissed on account of this Commission not having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint—However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file an appropriate complaint before the State Commission for redressal of his grievance—The time taken from the date of filing of the complaint till disposal in this Commission shall not be counted towards limitation if a fresh complaint is filed before the State Commission.
Result: Complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
This complaint has been filed by Sunil Bhasin against the opposite party.
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are that the opposite party society allotted a 2 BHK flat No.73 to the complainant after he was found qualified as per the rules of allotment. The complainant had paid Rs.7,29,369/- for flat. He further paid small amount as demanded by the society till the year 2008. The society did not give the possession to the complainant for a long time and finally the possession was given on 31.05.20016.
3. The following prayers have been made in the complaint:-
“(i) The respondent society be directed to pay the petitioner an interest of 18% per annum on deposits on yearly compounded basis for 16 years from 1st January, 2001 to 31st May, 2016 when the possession was given on Rs.7,29,369/- as full cost of flat, which comes to Rs.86,58,908/-. A statement showing the computation of interest payable on deposits is enclosed as Annexure-‘ZF’.
(ii) The respondent society be also directed to pay the difference of net refundable amount of Rs.60,580/- to the petitioner (arising out of applying to a lower interest rate of 10% instead of 18%) in terms of the decision of this Commission held in the case of DDA Vs. Amarjeet Singh Kohli stating that the amount recovered beyond Rs. 3.31 lac (interest having already paid is illegal, void and is liable to be reimbursed to the complainant with 18% per annum)
(iii) The respondent society be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for suffering of mental agony, harassment and physical torture in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) The opposite party be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,24,784/- to the petitioner for paying the rent of the house taken on lease from the lessor, Shri Kamal Bhasin under the lease agreements duly entered firstly with PFC, the employer of the petitioner for the relevant period from 1-1-2001 to 31-8-2008 and thereafter with the petitioner from 1-9-2008 to 31-5-2016. Copy of the Lease Agreements and rent receipts are enclosed as Annexure-’ZG’
(v) The respondent society be also directed to clear the arrears of the property taxes including penalty for the flat for the period from 1-1-2001 till the date of handing over the possession of flat to the petitioner on 31st May, 2016. It is submitted that the petitioner had paid the property tax of Rs.3,661/- for his flat for the year 2016-17 after taking the possession of his flat.
(vi) The opposite party be also directed to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards cost of litigation and other charges being incurred in connection with the case.
(vii) May also grant any such other relief as deem fit and proper by the Hon’ble Commission in the circumstances.”
4. Heard the complainant in person at the admission stage. The complainant argued that this Commission has a jurisdiction to consider this complaint as the total relief claimed is more than rupees one crore. It was further mentioned that after getting the possession on 31.05.2016, the complaint has been filed on 14.05.2018 and therefore, the complaint is within limitation. Complaint has been filed for payment of interest on the paid amount from the date of payment till the date of possession @18% p.a. on compounded basis.
5. It was prayed that this Commission may deal with this complaint and finally adjudicate upon the same.
6. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the complainant and have examined the record.
7. The first prayer in the complaint is in respect of the payment of interest of 18% p.a. on the compounding basis on the amount of Rs.7,29,369/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party. When the complainant has received the possession of the unit, he is not entitled to 18% p.a. interest as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65: 2004 (5) Supreme 51, as under:-
“However, the power to and duty to award compensation does not mean that irre
