IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 27.06.2019

Date of Decision :13.08.2019

COMPLAINT NO.760/2018

In the matter of:

1. Shri Tarun Gupta,

S/o. Shri A.K. Gupta.

2. Smt. Rekha Gupta,

W/o. Shri Varun Gupta.

Both r/o. F-45, Sai Apartment,

Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ………Complainants

Versus

1. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Through its Chairman

Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain.

2. Shri Pardeep Kumar Jain,

Chairman of M/s. Parsvnath

Developers Ltd.

Both to be served at Corp. Office:

19, B.K. Road, New Delhi-110001.

Also at:

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.……..Opposite Parties

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. Initially this complaint was filed in District Forum New Delhi from where it was returned vide order dated 09.05.18 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. This happened so due to three Member Bench decision of NC in Amrish Kumar Shukla.
2. The case of the complainant is that OP gave advertisement in newspaper in the year 2004 that it had future project at Parsvnath Near Tau  Devi Lal Park, Phase-II, Sonipat, Haryana.  It fixed hoarding. At the  time of booking of plot it gave assurances that it would construct and hand over possession within  stipulated period of 36 months. It promised that it had taken all necessary and statutory approval from the competent authorities and there would not be any kind of hindrance and obstruction in its way in developing and constructing residential plots.
3. Shri Anand Kumar Jain booked a plot of 500 sq. yds  in the year 2004. He paid Rs.2,75,000/- against receipt dated 08.09.04. Later on he transferred the booking in the name of Shri Hitaen Arora and he paid Rs.6,50,000/- against receipt dated 30.12.05 who in turn transferred  the same in the name of present complainant vide endorsement dated 12.04.08 and OP received administrative charges of Rs.62,500/-.
4. The complainant made entire payment to Shri Hitaen Arora. It was assured that possession of the plot would be handed over and delivered within the period of six months. Half of the amount had been taken by the OP. The complainant  visited the site and found that OP had not carried out any single activity at the project. Even infrastructure had not been developed.. The complainant was ready and willing to make balance payment to OP against possession of the flat. He served legal notice dated 11.05.15 calling upon the OP to hand over  possession of the plot and  execute the regular sale deed within 7 days. In the alternative he claimed sum of Rs.9,25,000/- with interest @24% per annum from date of booking till realisation. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to accept balance payment as per payment schedule and hand over physical possession of the plot, direct OP to execute regular sale deed. In the alternative he has prayed for directions to refund Rs.9,25,000/- with interest @24% per annum from the date of booking till realisation, refund Rs.62,500/- with interest at the same rate which was administrative/ transfer charges. He has also sought directions to the OP to produce sanctioned plan, approval, lay  out plan, other necessary permissions for selling plot under future project, direct OP to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental torture, pain, agony, suffering and set back, Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. OP filed WS stating that in Ganesh Lal vs. Shyam Hon’ble Supreme Court held that  jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is limited to deficiency in goods and services.  Failure to hand over possession of land simpliciter  can not be brought within the jurisdiction of th