AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MS . Rajni Gupta, the complainant claims that she is a handicapped lady. According to her, her father is blind and her mother is paralytic. The complainant booked a plot with M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. -OP, in this case. This was a commercial site/plot bearing No. B1/6, DLF measuring 589.10 sq. mts. The total cost of the plot was Rs.7,36,250/ -. The complainant gave a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/ - drawn on Punjab National Bank, Delhi on 25.11.1996. The complainant further paid Rs.51,250/ - vide cheque dated 30.11.1996. Accordingly, she paid Rs.1,76,250/ - , as part payment of the said plot. She was assured that the possession of the said plot would be given shortly. However, the OP did not complete the formalities and did not provide the basic amenities. Again, it did not obtain the completion certificate from the concerned authority. The above said plot was assessed at the rate of Rs.1250/ - per sq. mt.
THE Complainant received a letter dated 10.12.1996 wherein the OP raised illegal and arbitrary demand @ Rs.1495/ - per sq. mt. as well as Rs.119.60 as preferential location charges and Rs.3,000/ - as maintenance charges. The complainant sent a protest letter dated 25.01.1997 along with a format of sale agreement in which area of the plot was wrongly given and rate of plot was also wrongly mentioned. The complainant was required to sign the format up to 28.04.1997. The complainant sent the protest letter on 25.01.1997.
ON 25.01.1997, the OP sent a letter dated 28.04.1997 in explaining the above said enhanced rate in the sum of Rs.1,495/ - per sq.mt. in place of Rs.1,250/ - per sq.mt., Rs.119.60 as preferential location charges and Rs.3,000/ - as maintenance charges. On 24.06.1998 the OP demanded a sum of Rs.10,14,621/ - against the cost of plot and asked the complainant to deposit the said amount up to 15.07.1998 which was not practicable and possible, therefore, the needful could not be done. The complainant sent letters dated 16.06.1998 and 14.07.1998 signifying her willingness to pay the balance amount as per the agreed rate, i.e. @ Rs. 1,250/ - per sq.mt. On 07.10.1999, the OP sent letter showing that her plot had been cancelled because she had failed to pay the amount in the sum of Rs.1,76,250/ -. The complainant sent protest letter on 15.011.1999. It is contended that the price of the plot in the open market has gone multi -time up and at present, the market value of the allotted plot is more than Rs.2.00 crores.
THE compliant is conspicuously silent as to what happened thereafter, from the year end 1999, till the filing of the complaint which was filed before this Commission, on 14.01.2015, after a lapse of about 16 years.
WE have heard the complainant in person. She has submitted that the market value as per record issued by Zilla Adhikari, Ghaziabad, at Sl.No. 485, of the plot allotted at DLF Ankur Vihar is 30,000/ -. It is not mentioned what it is meant by 30,000. It is not written whether it is per sq.yd or per sq.mtr or what does it mean. Anyhow, this Commission does not go into what is the market price of the plot in dispute. The total sum of the price of the plot is Rs.7,36,250/ -. We are of the considered view that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. This complaint should have been filed before the District Forum. The complaint has been filed with the following prayers: - "(a)That the opposite party be directed to handover the possession of plot No. B 1/1, D.L.F. Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad measuring 589.10 sq.mt. @ Rs.1250/ - per sq.mtr. and be directed to execute and get registered sale -deed in favour of the complainant at her expenses in registry and stamps.
(b)That the opposite party may be directed to pay/adjust the accrued interest @ 24% quarterly per annum upon the deposited amount Rs.1,76,250/ - from the date of deposit on the basis of Law of Equity, till the possession is handed over. (c ) That the opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.10 lac as compensation for harassment, mental agony and financial loss caused by the opposite party to the complainant.
(d) That the opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.1 lac cost of litigation and other expenses to the complainant".
WE tried to make the petitioner and her counsel, Mr. Arvind Kumar Garg, who appeared once, that the case should be filed before the District Forum, but they insisted that this Commission should decide the case on merits.
SECTION 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, mentions that this Commission shall entertain "complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore". The duty cast on this Commission is to find out whether the claim made by the complainant is exaggerated or within the permissible limit.
THERE lies no rub in demanding as much as money as one feels correct. However, there should be some ''basis'' for the same. The question of market value cannot be adjudicated by a consumer court which is to dispose of the case in a summary fashion. It is settled law that where huge demand/claim has been made, the complainant should be advised to knock at the doors of the civil court. See recent authorities reported in Pesi Dady Shroff Vs. Boehringer Ingetheim Denmark and Anr. Civil Appeal No.9453 of 2013, decided on 10.07.2013 and Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., 2002 2 SCC 1.
IN the result, we, instead of dismissing the complaint on the ground of having no pecuniary jurisdiction, transfer the same to the District Forum, Ghaziabad, for adjudicating the same, as per law. The complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum, Ghaziabad, on 15th May, 2015. The District Forum is directed to decide the case on merits, as per law. The complaint stands disposed of.