ASHA PANDEY Vs. VATIKA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a residential villa with the opposite party in a project namely 'Bellevue Villa', later renamed 'Signature 2 Villa' which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 82-A of Gurgaon. The villa No. 53/240 / Simplex 1BR was allotted to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.79, 64, 920/-. The parties executed an agreement dated 9.9.2009, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid transaction. As per Clause 11 of the aforesaid agreement, the construction was to be completed within a period of three years from the execution of the agreement. The construction therefore, ought to have been completed on 9.9.2012. However, before expiry of the aforesaid time limit, the parties entered into an Addendum dated 13.5.2012, which was signed by the complainant Asha Pandey as well as the authorized signatory of the opposite party. In terms of the aforesaid addendum, it was agreed that instead of the originally allotted villa, villa No. S-22 of ST 82 D1-6 would be allotted to the complainant. All other terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9.9.2009 remained to hold good and valid for the newly allotted villa and all the payments made by the complainant against the previously allotted villa were treated as payment of the sale consideration of the new villa. The possession of the villa therefore ought to have been delivered to the complainant on or before 9.9.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the villa was not even offered despite she having paid Rs.24, 24, 946/- to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore before this Commission, seeking possession of the aforesaid villa along with compensation etc.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on several grounds including that this Commission does have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) In terms of Section 21 of the C.P. Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or services as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. As held by a Three-Member Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such a case would mean the sale price agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder for the apartment. Therefore, the value of the services in this case was Rs.79, 64, 920/-.