Naveen Tiku vs Today Homes And Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

SHRI Naveen Tiku has filed the instant consumer complaint against M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited Developer alleging deficiency in service in respect of the flat booked by the complainant in the project undertaken by the opposite party.

COUNSEL for the opposite party at the outset has raised an issue that National Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try this matter.

MR . H.L.Tiku, Senior Advocate has taken us through the para 48 of the complaint and the prayer clause and contended that if the value of the relief claimed by the complainant under different heads is added, then the total quantum of relief claimed is more than a Crore. Therefore, the case falls within the exclusive pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission. Counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has contended that the possession of flat in question has already been delivered to the complainant and, therefore, so far as prayer for execution of Conveyance Deed is concerned, its value cannot be the value of the flat. He has argued that if the relief claimed under the other heads is added, the value of relief claimed falls far below Rs.1.00 crore. Therefore, in view of Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act), this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with this matter and complaint ought to have filed before the State Commission.

IN order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be useful to have a look at the prayer clause, which is reproduced as under: "a. Direct the opposite party to execute and register the Conveyance Deed/Sale Deed though its authorized agent/attorney in respect of the Unit bearing No.115 B, Second Floor, "N" Block, Mayfield Garden, Sector -51 Gurgaon, Haryana together with the terrace on ownership basis alongwith proportionate undivided share of land underneath in favour of the complaint in the time framed fixed by this Hon''ble Commission;

b. Direct the Opposite Party to incorporate the expression "the vendee has exclusive Ownership, use and employment of terrace above the second floor" in Clause 5 of the Conveyance / Sale Deed.

c. Award Rs.60,00,000 ( Rs. Sixty Lacs) as compensation claimed for escalation of price and mental agony in terms of para 41 hereof in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party;

d. direct the opposite party to pay damages to the tune of Rs.2,15,400/ - (Rupees Two lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred) as also for further period at the rate of Rs.5/ - (Rupees Five) per Sq. Ft per month together with the interest @ 18% per annum till the time the execution and registration of Conveyance /Sale Deed takes place;

e. Award Rs.2,50,000/ - ( Rs. Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) as litigation expenses in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party;

f. pass such order relief (s) and further relief (s) which this Hon''ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the Complainant and against the respondents."

IT is undisputed that possession of flat has already been delivered to the complainant. Therefore, in our considered view, so far as prayer (a) and (b) relating to the execution of Conveyance Deed, the value cannot be taken as the value of the flat particularly when in clause ( c), the complainant is seeking Rs.60,00,000/ - as compensation for escalation of price of flat. Besides said Rs.60.00 lakhs, the complainant has sought damages to the tune of Rs.2,15,000/ - with 18% interest till the time of execution of registration and Rs.2,50,000/ - as litigation expenses. If the said two amounts are added to the claim for award of Rs.60.00 lakhs , the total compensation claimed by the complainant comes to somewhere around Rs.64,65,000/ -plus some future interest and damages. Thus the total value of relief being below Rs.1.00 crore, in view of Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act, the matter does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file consumer complaint on same cause of action before the fora having appropriate jurisdiction.