In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against NH Matcon Aero homes wherein pecuniary jurisdiction was discussed.
The Court held that in the present case value of the property was more than Rs.30 lacs which was much more beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. When District Forum was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint it was not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is a nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal No.461 of 2016 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.
Judgment digest
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.461 of 2016
Date of Institution: 23.05.2016
Date of Decision:29.06.2017
Appellants:
- M/s N.H.Matcon (Partnership Firm), Registered office, SCO 3, (First Floor)Royale Estate, Chandigarh-Ambala Highway, Near IDBI Bank, Zirakpur, Mohali (Punjab) through its Partner Sh.Nitin Bansal S/o Sh.M.L.Bansal.
- Mr. Nitin Bansal S/o Sh.M.L.Bansal, Managing Partner, M/s NH Matcon, R/o H.No.1704, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana.
Respondents:
- Dr.Yash Paul Sharma S/oDina Nath Sharma r/o H.NO.343, Sector 2 Panchkula.
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd through its Manager, Having its branch office at SCO 230, Sector-11, Panchkula.
Present:-
Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sumit Narang, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Punit Tuli, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALSO READ- PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS PANCHKULA RERA COMPLAINT HARYANA
Quorum:
Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Judgment digest:
First Appeal No.719 of 2016
Date of institution:- 04.08.2016
Date of Decision:- 29.06.2017
Appellant:
Dr.Yash Paul Sharma S/o Dina Nath Sharma r/o H.NO.343, Sector 2 Panchkula.
Respondents:
- M/s N.H.Matcon through its Managing Partner/Principal Officer, having its Corporate office at SCO 3, Level One, Royale Estate, Chandigarh-Ambala Highway, Near IDBI Bank, Zirakpur, Mohali (Punjab) II Address-AERO Homes, Gazipur, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali.
- Mr. Nitin Bansal S/o Sh.M.L.Bansal, Managing Partner, M/s NH Matcon, R/o H.No.1704, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana.
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd through its Manager, Having its branch office at SCO 230, Sector-11, Panchkula.
Quorum:
Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present:-
Mr.Sumit Narang, Advocate counsel for the appellant
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Punit Tuli, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT AGAINST EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
This order will dispute of aforesaid appeals because they are filed against the same order dated 21.03.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT PREET LAND PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
It was alleged by the complainant that opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 launched Group Housing Residential Society under the name and style of “AERO HOMES” at Gazipur, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab. He applied for a flat having a super area of 1760 sq. feet having a basic sale price of Rs.35,46,000/- and club charges as Rs.60,000/-. He remitted Rs. One lac as booking amount in favor of O.P.No.1 vide cheque dated 29.01.2011 drawn on Punjab National Bank Sector 17 Chandigarh. The said payment was acknowledged by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 vide receipt No.16 dated 29.01.2011. They also promised to secure a bank loan for him. He further paid Rs.2,54,600/- to O.P.Nos.1 and 2 vide cheque No.819480 dated 25.02.2011 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Sector-11 Panchkula, Haryana which was acknowledged by them vide receipt No.40 of that date. In this way, he paid 10% of the total amount i.e. Rs.3,54,600/- by 25.02.2011, and became entitled to a bank loan. On 06.04.2011 O.P.Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.5,31,900/- from him and the same was paid to vide cheque dated 23.04.2011 drawn on Indusind Bank, Chandigarh. As it was a construction link plan, O.ps. were duty-bound to inform him about the progress of construction. Instead of securing a loan for him they again demanded Rs.8,27,526/- on 12.03.2012.
ALSO READ- MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
It was told that the allotment of the flat would be governed by provisions of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GAMADA) (MC), Zirakpur. As per the Buyer’s agreement, possession was to be delivered within two years, and in case of default they were supposed to pay Rs.5/- per sq. feet per month. Without completing construction O.Ps. asked to take possession within 15 days vide letter dated 30.11.2014 and demanded Rs.12,60,177.40/- as detailed in the complaint, whereas he was not to pay any amount. As O.P.No.2, managing partner of OP No.1, was residing at Panchkula, so district Forum at this place was having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint. O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that District Forum, Panchkula was neither having territorial jurisdiction nor pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute. The property was situated in Punjab and there was no personal dispute with O.P.No.2. Provisions contained in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP) were attracted in this case. It was also alleged that the value of this flat was Rs.36,06,000/- whereas the District forum was having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter up to Rs.20/- lacs. He did not pay installments in time and was not entitled to the relief claimed. He did not come forward to take possession and to escape from his liability, filed this complaint. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed it as under:- “i. To make the payment of Rs.8800/- (1760×5) per month from 01.07.2013 till the date of physical possession of the flat. ii. To make payment of an amount of Rs.1 lac to the complainants as compensation for harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice, and deficiency in service. iii. to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.” Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant, as well as O.P.Nos.1 and 2, have preferred these appeals. In the present case O.Ps. raised objection about territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum to try this complaint. From the perusal of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the apartment booked by the complainant is situated within the jurisdiction of District Forum Mohali, Punjab. That area is situated outside the jurisdiction of District forum, Panchkula. If Nitin Bansal is residing at Panchkula it does not mean that District forum Panchkula is having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute because he is a partner of O.P.No.1 and no branch office or any other type of office is situated at Panchkula. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”
ALSO READ- GILLCO DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA CASE
Judgment:
In the present case value of the property was more than Rs.30 lacs which was much more beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum. When District Forum was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint it was not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is a nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995. In these circumstances impugned order dated 21.03.2016 is set aside. Complaint and appeal No.719 of 2016 filed by the complainant are dismissed and appeal No.461 of 2016 filed by O.Ps. is allowed. The complainant shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint before competent Fora. The benefit of time consumed during the proceedings of this complaint may be granted to the complainant for the computation of period for limitation in subsequent proceedings, if any, as per the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of appeal No.461 of 2016 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.
ALSO READ- MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS RERA PUNJAB COMPLAINT
This post is written by Riya Singh
For case specific advice, one can contact best/top/expert consumer/Real estate lawyers advocate practicing in District Consumer Forum or State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Punjab Haryana Chandigarh.
For more info contact- 99888-17966.
This post covers topics related to consumer court judgements against builders 2019 consumer complaint against builder format case against builder for poor construction complaint against builder for poor construction rera complaint against builder criminal complaint against builder format consumer complaint against builder format pdf consumer court judgements against builders 2018.
