SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been directed by the appellants/complainants under Section 47 of the C.P. Act 2019 challenging the final order being No.4 dated 20.04.2022 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Howrah.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainants’) file a complaint case being NO. CC/42/2022 before the Ld. District Commission, Howrah against the Respondent/OP (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) alleging deficiency in service. The District commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The complainants filed the complaint petition against the OPs praying for direction upon OP company to reduce the value of the subject flat by Rs.19,14,000/- to execute and register the proposed Agreement for sale showing exact parameters along with consequential reliefs. The consideration of the subject flat was 94,32,880/- and Rs.1,01,52,349/- including GST. The complainants have deposited Rs.10,15,235/- only as booking money. The District Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the full consideration of the flat is Rs.94,32,880/- which is beyond the pecuniary limit of District Commission i.e. Rs.50,00,000/-.
After admission of the instant complaint before the concerned Ld. District Commission, the complainant filed one application under Section 38(8) of CP Act, 2019 being No. MA/2/2022 and OP filed an application for dismissal of the complaint case on jurisdictional ground and other law points and in that application, the OP has categorically made written objection under the heading “objection” against MA/2/2022.
After admission of the complaint case before the Ld. District Commission subsequently an application under Section 38 (8) of CP Act, 2019 of the complainants has been registered being No. MA/2/2022. The Ld. District Commission has observed that the district Commission cannot entertain the complaint where the value of the goods and services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-. The Ld. District Commission has further observed that complainants have highlighted in their petition of complaint that consideration amount was fixed at Rs.94,32,880/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission for the purpose of entertaining the case. Therefore, the Ld. District Commission dismissed the complaint due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the original complaint being No. CC/42/2022 was dismissed with liberty to withdraw their case and to file the fresh application before the appropriate forum.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the complainants have filed the instant appeal before this Commission.
On the date of the final hearing, the complainant No. 2 was present on behalf of both the complainants. Complainant No. 2 has submitted before this Commission that it is true that the value of the flat is Rs.94,32,880/- and including GST value, it was fixed at Rs.1,01,52,349/-. But they have paid only Rs.10,15,235/- for purchasing a residential flat in question with a super built up area of 1240 sq. ft. @ 6790 per sq. ft. along with a covered garage. Therefore, the paid consideration of the complainants is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Ld. DCDRC vide notification dated 30.12.2021 issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs). In support of their contention, the complainants have cited the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in CC/833/2020 whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held as “It appears that the Parliament while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumers should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not the value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34(1), 47(1) (a) (i) and 58(1) (a)(i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.
From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission, or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations.”
The complainant No. 2 has further submitted that the Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate the purport and contents of Section 34 of the CP Act, 2019 and the Ld. District Commission ought to have appreciated that it is now settled law that for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction the value of the goods and services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of goods and services purchased.
Hence, the complainants have prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Ld. District Commission and matter be remanded back to the Ld. District Commission for adjudication on merit or the value of goods and services and compensation claimed.
Ld. Advocate for the OP has submitted before this Commission that the complainants have filed the complaint case adopting suppression and distortion of material facts and documents purportedly. The MA Application being No. MA/2/2022 is an afterthought and by suppressing the fact that their allotment/booking of apartment in question has been cancelled by way of letter dated 16.02.2022 issued by the OP. The complainants are misleading this Commission by misrepresenting the facts only to draw the jurisdiction of Ld. District Commission at Howrah which is impermissible under law and cannot be allowed. Reliefs sought in the complaint are not amenable to the jurisdiction of Ld. District Commission at Howrah. The complaint case has been filed with unclean hands and in exercise of gross suppression and distortion of material facts. at The Ld. DCDRC does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP has further submitted that the complainants have disclosed and maintained that they are residents of Pashim Medinipur as stated in the cause title of the complaint petition and the same was also disclosed in the application form jointly signed and submitted by the complainants at the time of booking of the service apartment on 09.12.2020 and therefore, no cause of action whatsoever has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission. However, the Howrah address has been adopted by the complainants by hook and crook to file this frivolous petition before this Commission for the reasons best known to them. Even assuming but not admitting that the complainants are the residents of Howrah as mentioned in the petition, such Howrah address appears to be a flying address of the complainants. The complainants are hit by the Explanation (a) of Sub-Section (7) of Section 2 of the CP Act. Therefore, the complaint petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected in limine.
As per the notification dated 30.12.2021 by the Central Government, the value of goods and services paid by the complainants exceeds Rs.50,00,000/- and hence the District Commission does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. Hence, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint since the complainants have failed to make out any case of deficiency in service by the OP in the petition as well as the interim application filed by the complainant before the Ld. District Commission. Therefore, Ld. District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.
Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears to us that the complainants have filed an application being No. MA/2/2022 under Section 38(8) of CP Act, 2019. Section 38 of CP Act, 2019 is as follows:
“Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Commission, if it appears necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Against the said application filed by the complainants under Section 38(8) of the CP Act, 2019, the OP had filed objection before the Ld. District Commission and upon hearing the parties , the Ld. District Commission rejected the MA Application and the complaint case as well for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been implemented on 20th July, 2020. As per Section 34, the jurisdiction of the District Commission is as follows:
“Jurisdiction of the District Commission – (1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupee.
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value as it deems fit.”
By the notification dated 21st December, 2021, the Central Government has changed pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission , State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission. Regarding jurisdiction of District Commission is categorically mentioned in Rule 3 that “Jurisdiction of District Commission-Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 34 of the Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entrtain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.”
It is crystal clear that in the instant case the complainants paid Rs.10,15,235/- only, but the District Commission has dismissed the complaint case on the observation that the value of the goods is Rs.94,32,880/- which is the total consideration of the flat in question not the paid the consideration. The CP Act, 2019 is very clear in this respect. Previously, for pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the goods along with the compensation was considered to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum/Commission as per Section 11 of the CP Act, 1986. But as per the CP Act, 2019 only the paid consideration is the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case by the District Commission, State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission. In the instant case, the paid consideration is only 10,15,235/- which is within the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of DCDRC i.e., Rs.50,00,000/-. The Ld. District Commission has probably missed the words ‘paid consideration’ rather it has observed the total consideration instead of paid consideration.
Moreover, the complainants filed the application MA/2/2022 for seeking interim relief.
But the application under hearing paying for interim relief was disposed of on the ground of maintainability based upon the objection filed by the OP. The petition praying for interim relief as sought by the complainants was neither allowed nor rejected by the District Commission rather the complaint case was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction on the point of non-maintainability mentioned in the written objection filed by the OP.
With the above observation and relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in CC/833/2020, it is crystal clear that the Ld. District Commission has made an error of law in dismissing the consumer complaint with observation that the District Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case.
In view of above, the appeal is allowed on contest and the case is remanded back to the Ld. District Commission, Howrah. Ld. DCDRC, Howrah is hereby directed to take up the matter in its original file and number and to dispose of the same on merit preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Since the complaint case was dismissed on pecuniary jurisdiction and the appeal is allowed on that point only and the case is remanded back to the District Commission, we refrain ourselves from passing any comments on other issues involved in the case.
Fix 06.06.2023 for appearance of the parties before the Ld. DCDRC, Howrah for receiving further direction.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Commission, Howrah at once.
