SIDDHANT SINGH CHAUHAN & ANR Vs. VATIKA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants booked residential flats with the opposite party in a project namely "The Seven Lamps", which the opposite party was to develop in Sector 82 of Gurgaon. The complainants then executed individual Apartment Buyers agreements with the opposite party on different dates, incorporating the respective obligations of the parties in respect of the said transactions. In terms of the schedule for possession contained in the said Apartment Buyers agreements, the possession was to be delivered within a period of three years from the execution of the said agreements. Computed from the date of the execution of the said agreements, the possession ought to have been delivered by 26. 6. 2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 1176 of 2016, by 29. 1 2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 1177 of 2016, by 2 1 2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 1178 of 2016, by 24. 8. 2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 1179 of 2016, by 06. 12. 2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 1180 of 2016 and by 12. 10. 2014 in Consumer Complaint No. 1181 of 2016. The opposite party offered possession of the said flats to the allottees on different dates. Admittedly, no occupancy certificate had been obtained by it, by the date on which the possession was offered. The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking possession of the flats allotted to them, along with compensation. They are also seeking refund of the parking charges paid by them to the opposite party, on the ground that the parking area being part of the common areas and facilities, were required to be provided free of cost alongwith the apartment.

(2.) The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party which has taken a preliminary objection that this Commission lack pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. On merits it is alleged that there was some delay in offering possession but it occurred on account of the reasons beyond the control of the opposite party. It is also the case of the opposite party that they have since obtained the requisite occupancy certificate on 17. 10. 2017 in the name of one of its subsidiary namely Shiv Ganesh Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) As far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, though the compensation claimed by the complainants is much more, even if the compensation for the delayed possession with effect from the committed date of possession till the date of filing of the consumer complaints is computed @ 12% per annum and the amount of parking charges is added to, the aggregate comes to more than Rupees one crore. Therefore, in view of the decision rendered by a Three-Members of the Commission in CC No. 97 of 2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07. 10. 2016, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints.