SONALI KUMAR Vs. UNITEH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cc/498/2015 (seeking possession + compensation)

(2.) The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party on the grounds which this Commission has repeatedly rejected in a number of consumer complaints. The first objection taken by the opposite party is that in some of the cases the agreed sale consideration was less than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain those complaints. It has been further alleged that a number of complainants had purchased the flat at a later date knowing fully well that the opposite party will not be able to deliver possession of the said flat, by the date stipulated in the Buyers Agreement and, therefore, it is evident that the flat was purchased by them for commercial purpose. As regards the delay in offering possession of the flats, the opposite party has alleged that (i) the project faced various road blocks and hindrances including approval from different authorities (ii) there was slow down in the real estate, affecting the demand and supply of the flats (iii) there was shortage of labour in NCR region on account of requirement of labour in the projects relating to Commonwealth Games (iv) there was shortage of labour in the market due to implementation of social schemes such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and Jawarhar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission which diverted the labour to the employment guaranteed by the Government under the said schemes. It is also alleged that there was shortage of ground water and Punjab and Haryana High Court had stopped the usage of ground water for construction purposes. This is also claimed that there was shortage of bricks in the market due to restrictions placed by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, which had barred the excavation of top soil for the manufacture of bricks and had stopped the said manufacturing within a radius of 15 km from coal and lignite based thermal power plants without mixing at least 25% of ash with soil. It is also alleged that there was shortage of sand in the market since mining operations in the Aravali Hill were stopped due to a ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also alleged that it took a long time for the concerned authorities to give environmental clearance to the project.

(3.) Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act confers jurisdiction upon this Commission to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed exceeds Rs.1 crore. Only in CC No.340 of 2015, the agreed sale consideration was less than Rs.1 crore. If the amount of compensation claimed by the said complainants is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate amount comes to more than Rs.1 crore. Therefore, all the complaints are within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.