1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, Ruhi Seth, against the opposite party.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked an apartment with the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.1,84,44,568/-. The complainant had paid Rs,33,56,942/- to the opposite party. When the draft builder-buyer agreement was dispatched to the complainant, she objected to certain clauses under the said agreement and the same was sent back to the opposite party. The opposite party again sent revised builder-buyer agreement. However, the same was also not agreed by the complainant. Then the complainant refused to release further instalments to the opposite party. Consequently the opposite party unilaterally cancelled the unit provisionally assigned to the complainant and forfeited the total amount deposited by the complainant.
3. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, bearing No.664 of 2017. However, the complaint was returned by the State Commission vide its order dated 05.05.2017 with the direction to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum as the consideration of the flat was more than rupees one Crore. Accordingly, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage of the complaint. The learned counsel pointed out that the complaint was earlier filed with the State Commission as the refund amount was earlier Rs.33,56,942/-. The State Commission vide its order dated 05.05.2017 has ordered that the complaint has to be filed before the appropriate Commission. Hence, the present complaint has been filed. The learned counsel further mentioned that as per the judgement of larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC), it has been observed that the pecuniary jurisdiction shall be considered on the basis of total consideration amount and in this case the total consideration amount is Rs.1,84,44,568/- and therefore, this Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the record. The following prayer has been made in the complaint:-
“a. To admit the present consumer complaint and issue notice to the opposite party.
b. The opposite party be directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.67,81,023/- including the deposited amount of Rs.33,56,942/- and Rs.34,24,081/- (approximately) towards interest calculated @ 24% per annum from 20.03.2013 till 20.05.2017.
c. The opposite party be also directed to pay future interest and pendent elite interest @ 24% per annum on the aforementioned amount from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.
d. To hold the opposite party liable for deficiency in service.
e. To hold the opposite party liable for unfair trade practice.
f. The opposite party be also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and also the loss of finances suffered by the complainant.
g. That the opposite party be also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for meeting the legal expenses in pursuing this complaint before this Hon’ble Commission.
h. Any further relief or order, which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, may also be passed in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice.”
6. From the above prayer, it is clear that the main request is for refund of deposited amount of Rs.33,56,942/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., which comes toRs.34,24,081/-. Apart from this, the complainant has also requested for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost of litigation as Rs.1,00,000/-. The Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:-
“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i) complainants where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceed [rupees one crore]”
7. The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC). A reading of this judgment shows that this Commission has held that in cases where even the part deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. However this assertion of the larger bench of this Commission is based on the value of goods or services as mentioned in context of the definition of “ consumer” as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which includes the phrase “partly paid and partly promised”. It is found that the judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested. Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement. In the cases of refund the value of complaint has to be the value of the amount deposited plus compensation claimed. In the present case, amount deposited is Rs.33,56,942/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been demanded. Thus, the total figure does not cross the limit of Rupees One Crore, which is necessary for this Commission to exercise its jurisdiction. Even the addition of demanded interest shall not make the total value more than Rs. One Crore. In these circumstances, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint case.
8. The complainant had rightly filed the complaint before the State Commission. However, the State Commission without going into the details has returned the complaint to be filed before the appropriate forum. From the aforesaid analysis of the subject, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the State Commission as total amount demanded in the prayer is less than Rupees one crore. The interest to be earned in future cannot be allowed as part of compensation to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. Based on the above discussion, I find that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, consumer complaint No.1464 of 2017 stands dismissed as not being maintainable before this Commission due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, order dated 05.05.2017 of the State Commission shall not come in the way. The complainant shall be at liberty either to file fresh complaint or to move an application for revival of the complaint No.664 of 2017 before the State Commission. If such an application is moved within 8 weeks from the date of this order, the State Commission shall revive and restore the complaint No.664 of 2017 at its original number and shall proceed to decide the complaint. |
No comments:
Post a Comment