AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant booked a residential apartment with the opposite party in a project Ansal Crown Heights which opposite party was to develop in Sector 80 of Faridabad. The sale consideration for the aforesaid flat was agreed at Rs.59,45,740/- though the complainant claims to have paid Rs.62,14,411/- to the opposite party.
The case of the complainant is that the possession of the flat was to be delivered by 20.5.2014, but has not been offered till date. The complainant has therefore approached this Commission on 16.5.2017, seeking refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation etc.
In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods or services as the case may be and the compensation, if any claimed by the complainant is more than Rs. 1 crore. In view of the decision of this Commission in CC No. 97 of 2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., dated 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such cases would mean the sale consideration agreed between the parties.
As far as compensation is concerned, neither this Commission nor the Hon?ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 18% per annum in such cases. Though the complainant had claimed interest @ 24% per annum, the said claim is highly exaggerated and without any legal basis. The learned counsel for the complainant states that the opposite party was to charge interest @ 24% per annum in the event of delay on the part of the complainant in making payment to it and therefore, the complainant is entitled to interest at the same rate. However, the aforesaid contention has no foundation in law. The compensation in such cases must commensurate with the loss, if any, suffered by the complainant. This is not the case of the complainant that on account of appreciation in the value of the property sold to him is loss on the date the complaint was filed was his loss was more than compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to bypass the State Commission by making a highly exaggerated and unfounded claim only with a view to institute the complaint before this Commission.
If compensation in the form of interest calculated @ 18% per annum is added to the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite the aggregate does not come to more than Rupees one crore. This Commission therefore does not possess the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is hereby dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the concerned State Commission, after making suitable amendments to the complaint.