Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Anil Srivastava, Member
Mr. Sanjay Nagpal – Complainant
versus
Aura Infrastructure (P) Ltd. – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.378 of 2012
Decided on 3.1.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S. 47] – Services – complainant had booked a flat with the Opposite Party is evident from the allotment letter dated 14.06.2008. Payment to the extent of Rs. 19,64,599/- by the complainant “ Complaint filed for alleged notice for cancellation of the booking on account of non-payment of due instalments – pecuniary / territorial Jurisdiction of State Commission “ State commission has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.
Held: Rohit Srivastava v. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198, wherein it has been held as under:
“It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No. 1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.”
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S. 47] – Services – Complicate questions involving evidence – If can be entertained by Consumer court “ nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Party which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which could not be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties”Therefore, complaint is well within his right to file the complaint before this commission as there is nothing restraining this commission from finally adjudicating the present complaint.
Held: Perusal of the record shows that the Complainant entered into an agreement to avail the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. However, the Opposite Party failed to honour the terms of the agreement, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has sought damages on account of delay in handing over the possession of the said flat. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e. the failure of the Opposite Party to handover the possession within the prescribed period and it is only due to this reason, that the interest on account of delay in handing over possession is sought from the Opposite Party, which this Commission is authorised to adjudicated.
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S. 47] – Services – Alleged delay in handing over Flat – Deficiency in Service “ Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant as the Opposite Party had given false assurance to the complainant with respect to the time for completing the construction of the said project and kept the hard-earned money of the complainant for about 14 years. Moreover, the Opposite Party failed to handover the possession of the said flat to the complainant within the stipulated time as provided in the agreement executed between the parties “ Opposite Party is not in a position to handover the flat in question to the complainant. Therefore, as per the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that it is justified to refund the amount already paid by the complainant. [Paras 24 to 26]
JUDGMENT
Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party and has prayed the following:
a) Set aside the demand of the defendant as demanded vide its letter dated 22-01-12, 09-04-12, 31-05-12.
b) Set aside the cancellation notice dated 01-10-12 of the defendant Company.
c) Direct the defendant to pay below mentioned amount in favour of the complainant:
i. Rs. 14,07,963/ (Rupees Fourteen Lacs seven thousand nine hundred sixty three only) towards interest on account of delay in possession for the period May 2009 till date
ii. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) on account of damages
iii. Penditlete interest during the Proceeding
iv. Rs. 50,000/ Fifty thousand or such amount as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit towards cost and expenses of litigation, in favour of the complainant
v. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
vi. Total Claim Amt. Rs 24,07,963 (Rupees Twenty four lacs seven thousand nine hundred sixty three only).
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant booked a flat bearing no. E-608 with the opposite party in the project ‘Aura Chimera’ situated at Ghaziabad for a total consideration of Rs. 21,69,395/-. The complainant overthe time had paid an amount of Rs. 19,64,599/- to the opposite party and the balance payment of Rs. 2,04,796/- is to be paid at the time of possession. Thereafter, Flat buyer agreement was executed between the parties. As per the said agreement, the Opposite Party has to complete the construction of the project and handover the possession of the said flat to the complainant by April 2009 with a grace period of 3 months. However, till date the possession of the said flat has not been handed over by the Opposite Party. The opposite party vide letter dated 30.10.2009, 22.01.2012 & 15.04.2012 demanded the balance amount due, stating that the construction of the said flat is near completion. The complainant after receiving the said letter visited the site of the project and was shocked to see that the construction was incomplete. Furthermore, the opposite party vide letter dated 01.10.2012 sent notice for cancellation of the booking on account of non-payment of due instalments. The opposite party also failed to provide the copy of Occupancy certificate/ Completion certificate to the complainant.
3. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, the complainant has approached this commission.
4. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that this commission does not have the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint as the property in dispute is situated at Ghaziabad, U.P. He further submitted that the present matter involves complicated questions of facts and law and therefore cannot be adjudicated in summary procedure, hence, the dispute amounts to civil suit.
5. The counsel for the Opposite Party further contended that the complainant himself defaulted in making timely payments and therefore, the opposite party is entitled to charge interest on the delayed payment. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
6. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
8. The fact that the complainant had booked a flat with the Opposite Party is evident from the allotment letter dated 14.06.2008. Payment t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
