HEMANT ANAND Vs. SUPERTECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential apartment with the opposite party Supertech Limited, in a project namely "Supertech Hues", which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 68 of Gurgaon. The booking was made on 14.01.2017 and after allotment of flat number F/0101 in the aforesaid project to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.92,52,038/- a Buyer Development Agreement was executed between the parties on 18.07.2014. As per the aforesaid agreement the possession was to be offered to the complainant within 42 months i.e by July,2017 with a grace period of 6 months. The grievance of the complainant is that even the construction was not complete by the opposite party despite he having paid Rs.27,60,864/- to them. The complainant is therefore before this Commission with the following prayers:-

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has admitted the allotment made to the complainant as well as the payment received from him. A preliminary objection has been taken by the opposite party that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. On merits it is stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that the construction has been delayed on account of (1) an order dated 07.04.2015 passed by National Green Tribunal, placing restrictions on construction activities and (2) on account of the opposite party having sought to enhance the construction quality and having sought to strengthen the structure by applying advanced shuttering technology which took some time to be implemented. It is also been stated in the Written Version that the complainant was defaulter in making payment of the balance sale consideration having failed to pay the payment of Rs.34,25,453/- demanded vide letter dated 05.08.2017 followed by a reminder dated 19.09.2017.

(3.) As for as the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission is concerned in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed as the case may be and the compensation if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.1 Crore. It was held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 07.10.2016, that the value of the services in such a case would mean the sale price agreed to be paid by the buyer to the seller. The aforesaid decision to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-