NCDRC ; Defective goods / services _Determination of pecuniary jurisdiction

7.       In the order dated 07.10.2016, passed by the three-member bench of this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.” (supra), it is mentioned, that the following issue was, interalia, referred in FA No. 166/2016 and allied matters by a single-member bench of this Commission to the larger bench:-

“(i)     In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.”

8.       The three-member bench of this Commission observed as follows on the above issue:-

“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer.  Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction.  If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  Similarly, if  for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.”

9.       In the operative portion of the order it was stated as follows:-

“It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

10.     It is manifestly clear from the order passed by this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.” (supra), that the value of the flat was to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter in hand.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2016

(Against the Order dated 03/03/2016 in Complaint No. 45/2016 of the State Commission Haryana)

SANJAY SAINI
Versus
M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD.