SANJAY KUMAR CHOWDHARY Vs. SUPER TECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Sanjay Kumar Chowdhary and his wife Sangeeta Chowdhary booked a residential flat in a project namely 'Capetown' which the opposite party is developing in Sector 74 of Noida. Vide allotment letter dated 13.9.2011, Unit No.10201 (R 026 CGD 10201 Flat No. 0201 in Block CGD1 having super area of 1945 sq. ft. was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs. 66,33,819/-. In terms of the aforesaid allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered by the opposite party to the complainant in February, 2014 though, the said period could be extended upto six months due to unforeseen circumstances. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the flat has not been delivered to him despite they having already paid Rs. 63,29,596/- to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the amount paid by them along with compensation in the form of interest etc.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party which has admitted the allotment made to the complainants but has disputed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. On merits, it is stated that the possession of the flat in the tower in which the unit of the complainant is booked has already commenced. It is also claimed that in the event of delay, compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. is payable to the complainant in terms of Clause 19 of the allotment letter. It is also claimed that in the present case delay was caused due to unavailability of cement, sand and water in the year 2013 and there was shortage of labour during the relevant period. It is also alleged in para-8 of the written version that the complainant was informed vide Email dated 24.9.2016 that the possession was expected to be handed over in the last quarter of 2016.

(3.) As far as pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, in terms of section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite jurisdiction where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed along with compensation, if any, claimed by the complainant exceeds Rs. 1.00 crores. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016 , the value of the services in such cases means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. In the present case, the agreed sale consideration was more than Rs. 66.00 lacs. The complainant has claimed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum. If compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of each payment is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate come to much more than Rs. 1.00 crores. Therefore, this Commission does possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.