SISIR DAS & ANR. Vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants in the above referred matters are allottees of the residential flats in a project namely 'Vistas' which the opposite party is developing in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. The grievance of the complainants is that the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said flats to them on or before the date committed for delivery of possession. The complainants do not want to wait any more for such possession and therefore have approached this Commission, seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, along with compensation in the form of interest.

(2.) In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possess the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint, where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed, as the case may be, and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs. 1. 00 crores. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07. 10. 2016, the value of services in such cases means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the buyer to the seller.

(3.) Neither this Commission nor the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate higher than 18% per annum where, allottee is seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the builder, along with compensation. Therefore, if a consumer complaint is filed claiming highly inflated and exaggerated compensation without any basis in law, such a complaint cannot be entertained and adjudicated by this Commission. It is an admitted position before me that in all these cases, if compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate does not come to more than Rs. 1. 00 crore. Therefore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints.