DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/ 256/2015

No. DF/ Central/

1. Mr. Ram Chandra
S/o Dr. P. Dayal
2. Ms. Seema Chandra
W/o Ram Chandra
Both residents of-
K-14, Green Park Main, New Delhi-110016

                                                                                       ……..COMPLAINANT                  

 VERSUS

M/s AMR Infrastructures Limited
A company the registered under the
Companies Act 1956, registered office 2425/11
Gurdwara Road Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005.

                                                                   

                                                                                           …..OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                              ORDER                                       

Rekha Rani, President

1. Mr. Ram Chandra  and  Ms. Seema Chandra ( in short the complainants)  filed  the instant complaint  U/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging  therein that  they had  booked  a commercial space measuring 594 sq.ft. @ Rs. 5,750/- per sq. ft. floor unit XII-1/22 ,Tower A in  Kessel-I Valley situated at IT park Plot no. TZ-09, sector Tech Zone Greater Noida , U.P. , the project of M/s AMR Infrastructures Limited (in short the OP) to generate rental income. On 09.03.2012 complainants entered into MOU with the OP and paid Rs. 14 Lakhs out of total sale consideration of Rs. 26,00,800/-. On 08.12.2012 OP sent letter for offer of possession requesting the complainants to make balance payment claiming that the project was ready for possession. On 02.01.2013 complainants paid entire sale consideration and other charges.  Accordingly OP issued No Dues Certificate / Possession letter but failed to provide assured returns since October 2013 till date.   On 15.01.2014 a lease deed was registered in the name of the complainant by M/s RC Info System instead of the name of the OP on the ground that both the companies are sister concerns.  On 17.10.2014 rent agreement was executed through the OP between the complainants  and one M/s Lemon Grass India Private Ltd and the rent was payable@ Rs. 41 per sq.ft. from October 2014. OP assured  monthly return of Rs. 28643/- as per MOU.  OP has indulged in unfair trade practice by defiance of MOU dated 02.04.2012. Hence the complaint seeking direction to OP to pay lease rent @ Rs. 28,643/- per month for 24 months  amounting to Rs. 6,83,112/- with interest @ 15% p.a. compounded monthly and compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs for unlawful retention of money and causing mental agony , Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. On receipt of notice of the complaint  OP appeared and contested  the claim vide its written statement. It is stated that complainants are not consumers as the transaction between the parties was purely commercial. It is also stated that having taken possession of the unit without protest the complainant is not a consumer. It is also stated that the rent agreement dated 17.10.2014 between the complainant and M/s Lemon Grass India Pvt. Ltd is an  independent agreement and the OP has nothing to do with the said agreement. 
3. We have heard  Shaad Anwar  counsel for complainants and Sh. Shravan Kumar AR for OP.
4. The complainants have themselves stated in para  5 of the complaint that the total sale consideration of the booked space was Rs. 26,00,800/-which is beyond the jurisdiction of this forum.
5. As per Section 11 (i) of the Act the District Forum has pecuniary        jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where the value of goods and services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20 Lacs.
6.  Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous   Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016  observed that value of goods & services  and value of the relief claimed  is to be   seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of alleged  deficiency.
7. The same question again came up  before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum.  The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of  the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining   pecuniary jurisdiction.
8. In another case titled  Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission  judgment in  Ambrish Kumar Shukla  (supra)  was again referred and following relevant part  of the said judgment was quoted:  

“Reference order dated 11.8.2016   Issue No. (i)   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 lakh, 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 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”

9. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainant  had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and  final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized  the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition.  The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles.   Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High  Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India   taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant.  The complainant hence filed a  Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and  for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles.  The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The  Hon’ble National Commission observed that :

“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh,  the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-.  Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.

<>10.“In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint, where the value of the goods or services as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rupees One Crore.  As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,  decided on 07.10.2016, the value of services in such cases, means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. The following view was taken by this commission in CC/198/2015 Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters, decided on 31.01.2017. 

11. OP has raised various objections. It is stated that  the space booked was commercial. The complainants have themselves stated in para 3 of the complaint that the commercial space was booked for income generation and they are claiming assured returns.

It is also stated that complainants having taken possession of the booked space no longer remain consumers.

The said objections cannot be agitated here as this forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. The instant complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction . Copy of thesamebe retainedon record. Copy of this order be sentto the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

          Announced on this         Day  of  March 2018.