NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Nilabh Parimal and Anr. —Complainants
versus
Unitech Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.3690 of 2017
Decided on 15.5.2019
Result: Complaint disposed of.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainants initially booked a residential flat with the OP in a project namely ‘Capella’ which the OP was to develop in ‘Uniworld City’ in Greater Noida. Later on, the said booking was changed to another project namely ‘Uniworld Gardens’ which the OP was to develop in Sector-117 of Noida. Apartment No.1402 in Tower B-2 of the said project was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs.39,90,261/- and the complainants were given a discount in respect of the new allotment and an amount of Rs.4,93,227/-, out of the amount paid by them in respect of the flat booked in ‘Capella’ in Greater Noida, was refunded to them.
2. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment made to the complainants, the possession was expected to be delivered to the complainants by 31.08.2011. The grievance of the complainants is that the construction is not complete despite they having already paid the entire sale consideration to the OP. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the said amount alongwith compensation etc.
3. The OP has filed written version contesting the complaint but has admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payment received from them. The complaints have been resisted by the OP primarily on the grounds that (i) This Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the sale consideration of the apartment was less than Rs.1 Crore, (ii) The jurisdiction of this Commission is ousted after coming into force of Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act (RERA), (iii) There was agitation by the farmers whose land was acquired in Greater Noida and (iv) The farmers whose lands in the villages of Noida and Greater Noida had been acquired by the Government, had filed Writ Petitions in which acquisition of land in Greater Noida was quashed.
4. As far as the agitation by the farmers and acquisition of land in Greater Noida is concerned, the said events would have no bearing on this complaint since the second allotment to the complainants was made in Noida and not in Greater Noida. There is neither any allegation nor any evidence of the farmers having blocked the construction of the flats which the OP was to construct in the project ‘Uniworld Gardens’ in Sector-117 of Noida. There is neither any allegation nor any evidence of acquisition of the land on which the said project was to come up having even been challenged. There is no order quashing acquisition of the land on which the said project was to be developed. Therefore, I find no merit in the justification given by the OP for the delay in completion of the construction.
5. As far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed and compensation if any, claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rs.1 Crore. In the present case, the complainant has claimed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum. If interest at the aforesaid rate is calculated and added to the sale consideration of the apartment, the aggregate comes to more than Rs.1 Crore. It would be pertinent to note here that in terms of the decision rendered by a three-Members of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such cases would mean the price of the apartment agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. Considering that in the past, this Commission has awarded interest even at the rate of 18% per annum, the prayer made in the complaint for refund with interest @ 18% per annum cannot be said to be so outrageous and exaggerated so as to result in outright rejection of the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Eventually, this Commission may not award compensation
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.