RAKESH MEHTA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely "The Views" which the opposite party was to develop at Mohali Hills in Sector 105, SAS Nagar, District Mohali of Punjab. Flat bearing No. K-1, PH-01 was allotted to him for a consideration of Rs.96,97,842.01. According to the complainant at the time of booking, it was projected to him by the officials of the opposite party that the flat would be delivered at the end of the year 2012. The parties then entered into a Buyers Agreement dated 17.3.2011 as per which the possession was to be delivered with 36 months from the date of allotment i.e. by 27.01.2014. The complainant however, was allegedly assured that the possession would be delivered to him December, 2012 or latest by February, 2013. Since the possession was not offered to him, even in terms of the Buyers Agreement, the complainant has approached this Commission, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has taken preliminary objections that the terms and conditions of the agreement are final and binding upon the parties and time was not the essence of the agreement. Reliance is placed by the opposite party on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chand Rani Vs. Kamal Rani (1993) 1 SCC 519. It is also alleged that since the total consideration was less than Rs.one crore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, it is stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that the structure work of Tower K was complete and final finishing was going on. The booking made by the complainant as well as the allotment made to him, however has been admitted in the written version.

(3.) In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, This Commission possesses the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the aggregate of the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla And Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., dated 7.10.2016 in CC No.97 of 2016, the value of the services in such contracts means the sale price agreed to be paid by the buyer to the builder. The complainant has also claimed compensation along with the main relief claimed by him. If the amount of compensation is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate come to much more than Rs.1.00 crore. This Commission does therefore possess the pecuniary jurisdiction.