HARINDER SINGH DHALL Vs. SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 2.11.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 951/2015, "Harinder Singh Dhall v. Sahara Prime City Ltd.", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana in consumer complaint No. 843/11.12.2014, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Harinder Singh Dhall filed a consumer complaint against the OP Builder, Sahara Prime City Limited, saying that in response to their advertisement in the newspaper, he booked a three-bedroom flat at Jaipur, with area about 135.95 sq. mtr. vide application dated 14.02006 and made payment of the total demanded amount of Rs. 27,08,175/-. The complainant alleged that when he went to Jaipur city to verify the situation of the property, he was shocked to see that there was no construction at all. On taking up the matter with the OP company, a sum of Rs.35,06,061/- was refunded to him, which included the principal amount deposited by him, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. The complainant demanded that he should have been paid interest @15% p.a. rather than 9% p.a., because the OP builder was charging interest @15% from the allottees in case of default committed by such allottees. The complainant demanded that the OPs were liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.6,47,000/- as difference of interest to him and also give him compensation to the tune of 3 lakh, alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 207.2015, dismissed the complaint, based on letter dated 22.05.2014, written by the complainant to the OP that he had received the payment of Rs.35,06,069/- from them and he was satisfied with that. The District Forum also held that the complainant was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Ludhiana, because the property was situated at Jaipur. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed on similar grounds by the said Commission. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.