JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President)—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:

(a) That the Opposite Party be directed to transfer the ownership of the said plot, bearing the address, G-29 admeasuring 263.99 sq. yards which is currently unregistered, which was allotted to late Mrs Renu Ahluwalia in the name of her rightful husband and complainant Mr. Ashutosh Ahluwalia.

(b) That the Opposite Party be directed to waive-off the unjustified demand of Rs.13,45,861/-,

(c) Opposite Party be directed to compensate the complainant o the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him,

(d) Cost of litigation may also be awarded suitable and,

(e) Any other/further order/direction as the forum deems fit as per the facts and circumstances mentioned above in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant’s wife vide application form applied for the allotment of a plot in the ‘M2K County’ project of the Opposite Party, situated at Dharuhera, Haryana. Subsequently, the Opposite Party allotted plot no. G-29 in the aforementioned project, and a Plot Buyer Agreement was executed between the wife of the Complainant and the Opposite Party on 03.12.2008. As per Article 4 of the said agreement, the Opposite Party was to hand over possession of the said plot within 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement dated 03.12.2008. However, the Opposite Party has failed to hand over possession of the said plot till date.

3. Furthermore, the Complainant’s wife has paid a total sum of Rs.25,74,222/- (including EDC of Rs. 2,79,301/-) towards the total consideration of the said plot, i.e., Rs. 27,96,945/-, to the Opposite Party as and when demanded by it. Additionally, on 05.02.2013, the Complainant received an enhanced unjustified amount of Rs.5,42,115/- towards the said plot. More so, the Complainant sought clarification from the Opposite Party regarding the new demand. However, the Opposite Party failed to provide any satisfactory response to the Complainant. Furthermore, in 2014, the Complainant visited the site of the said project and was shocked to find that the Opposite Party had failed to complete the construction of the said plot. Therefore, the Complainant again contacted the Opposite Party to inquire about the status of construction of the said project. However, instead of providing any explanation for the delay in completing the construction, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 09.12.2012, demanded an exorbitant amount of Rs.13,45,861/- along with penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum on delayed payment, which is illegal and unjustified. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 01.02.2016 to the Opposite Party regarding the unjustified demand of Rs. 13,45,861/- towards the said plot but the Opposite Party failed to provide any satisfactory response to the Complainant.

4. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that this commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. He further submitted that after the death of the original owner, the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he was neither a nominee nor a party to the plot agreement. He also submitted that the present complaint is an abuse and misuse of the legal process, through which the Complainant is attempting to take undue advantage of his own wrongs and defaults already committed by the original allottee, who failed to pay the installments due since 2013 as demanded by the Opposite Party at the offer of possession stage. Additionally, he argued that the Complainant failed to demonstrate any deficiency on the part of the Opposite