GAURAV GOVIL Vs. UNITECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential apartment with the opposite party for an agreed sale consideration of Rs. 50,53,200.00. The Buyers Agreement between the parties was executed on 06.11.2009 and as per the Buyers Agreement, the possession was to be delivered within a period of 36 months thereof. Thus, the possession was agreed to be delivered by 06.11.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that despite he having already paid Rs. 4,70,335.00 to the opposite party, the possession has not even been offered to him. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission with the following prayer :

(2.) As per Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint where the value of the goods or the value of the services as the case may be along with compensation, if any claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rs. 1 crore. The term 'value of the services', in such transactions has been interpreted by this Commission in CC/97/2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited dated 07.10.2016 to mean the sale consideration agreed between the parties. Therefore, the value of the services in this case shall be taken at Rs. 50,53,200.00. The complainant is seeking possession of the flat booked by him and not refund of the amount, he has paid to the opposite party, though he is also claiming compensation on the amount paid by him. The compensation in such cases can be paid only from the committed date of possession which in this case would be 05.11.201 Though, the complainant has claimed compensation @ 18% per annum, this Commission has, in such cases, not awarded compensation at a rate higher than 12% per annum. Computed accordingly, the compensation if awarded to the complainant would come to less than Rs. 30 lacs. If the aforesaid amount is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate does not come to more than Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, this commission does not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Obviously, the complainant has deliberately inflated the compensation claimed in the complaint without any basis or justification and solely with a view to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission, and in order to avoid approaching the State Commission in terms of the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act. Such a practise if allowed would circumvent the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act as far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of various Consumer Fora is concerned. The complaint is therefore, dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned State Commission by way of a fresh complaint, with an appropriate prayer.