w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sailesh Bhatia & Another v/s Grassfield Farms & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Others

    Consumer Case No. 2007 of 2016

    Decided On, 21 December 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. K.S. CHAUDHARI
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainants: Neela Gokhale, Advocate. For the Respondents: -------------



Judgment Text

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainants against OPs.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants submitted applications for purchase of 5 plots to OP in December, 2005 and made payment of Rs. 31,51,071/-. In April, 2014, complainants received communication from OP that possession will be handed over soon. In June, 2016, OP communicated that by typographical error wrong number of plots have been allotted and later on they changed the plot numbers. It was further mentioned that upto 2016, there was neither any development work in the land, nor any permission for change of land use was obtained by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainants filed complaint for direction to OP to execute sale deed and handover possession of the plots and further prayed for return of money to the tune of Rs.2 crores towards interest on the amount paid with litigation expenses of Rs. 25 lakhs.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the complainants and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that in spite of receiving payment, OP has not handed over possession of the plots; hence, complaint be admitted.

5. Perusal of complaint reveals that complainants have paid a sum of Rs. 31,51,071/- for purchase of 5 plots in 2005 and plots were allotted in the year 2009. Subsequently, by letter dated 8.12.2016, plot numbers were changed. In para 21 of the complaint, complainants have claimed interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment whereas, allotment letter was issued in the year 2009. Even if it is presumed that 18% interest is payable on the deposited amount, interest cannot exceed Rs. 57 lakhs and by no stretch of imagination, complainants are entitled to claim Rs. 2 crores as interest. It seems that only for the purpose of filing complaint before this Commission; complainants are claiming interest to the tune of Rs. 2 crores without any basis. Complaint before this Commission is maintainable only if sale consideration plus compensation exceeds Rs. 1 crore whereas in the case in hand total sale consideration is only Rs.31,51,071/- and even if the interest @ 18% p.a. is added, it falls below Rs. 1 crore and in such circumstances this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complainants have unnecessarily filed this complaint before this Commission instead of filing it before appropriate State Commission for redressal of his grievances and in such circumstances, compla

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

int is not maintainable. 6. Consequently, complaint filed by complainants is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and complainants are given liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of grievances, if law permits. Complaint dismissed.
O R