Haryana

StateCommission

A/684/2017

SUPERTECH LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUN BHARDWAJ - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN SUD

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No.684 & 983 of 2017

Date of Institution: 06.06.2017 & 16.08.2017  

                                     Date of Decision: 25.04.2018. 

 

Appeal No.684 of 2017

 

M/s. Supertech Limited, 703-704, Tower-A, Signature Towers, South City-1, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) India, through its Authorized Signatory Shri Yagna Brahman and another.

 

….Appellant-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Arun Bhardwaj son of Shri M.C. Bhardwaj, resident of A-051, SUMMIT, DLF, Phase-V, Sector-54, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

….Respondent-Complainant

 

Appeal No.983 of 2017

 

Arun Bhardwaj son of Shri M.C. Bhardwaj, resident of A-051, SUMMIT, DLF, Phase-V, Sector-54, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

          ….Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s. Supertech Limited, 703-704, Tower-A, Signature Towers, South City-1, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana).

 

….Respondent No.1-Opposite Party No.1

 

2.      M/s. Supertech Limited, Supertech House, B-28-29, Sector 58, Noida-20130, U.P., through its Managing Director.

 

                                             ….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

 

 

Present:     Shri Nitin Sood, Advocate for appellant-opposite parties.

                   Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondent-complainant.

 

                  

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals No.684 & 983 of 2017 as they are arising out of common order dated 02.01.2017.

2.      As per complainant i.e. Arun Bhardwaj, he booked a flat with opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’) i.e. M/s Supertech Limited in the year 2014. It was told at that time that financial assistance could be arranged through HDFC Bank, but, same was not approved. He deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with OPs in the month of November, 2014. When finance could not be arranged, he requested them to refund that amount, but to no avail.

3.      In reply, it was alleged by OPs that concerned consumer fora was not having jurisdiction to try the complaint. He was never assured by them to arrange financial assistance. It was for him to make the payment. Objections about estoppels, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 02.01.2017 and directed as under:

“….we direct the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, subject to completing the requisite formalities regarding submission of documents/affidavit. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.”

 5.     Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred appeal No.983 of 2017 for enhancement and OPs have preferred appeal No.684 of 2017 to set aside impugned order dated 02.01.2017.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      It was argued by learned counsel for OPs/appellant in appeal No.684 of 2017 that cost of the flat was approximately Rs.59,75,200/- and District Forum was not having jurisdiction to decide the complaint. So complaint should have been dismissed. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon case laws Consumer Case No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 (NC); First Appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled as Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited decided on 07.10.2016 (NC); First Appeal No.1364 of 2017 titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension & Ors. Vs. Lalitha Saini decided on 21.08.2017 (NC); Revision petition No.2916 of 2017 titled as Suresh Karapurkar Vs. Amit C. Prabhu and Anr. decided on 15.11.2017 (NC); Consumer case No.1465 of 2016 titled as Dharmendra Kumar Vs. M/s. Nitishree Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. decided on 23.09.2016 (NC); Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr. II (1996) CPJ 103 (NC); Gurdeep Singh H. Puruswani & Anr. Vs. Runwal Constructions, IV (2015) CPJ 411 (NC).

8.      On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant argued that case laws cited by OPs are not applicable in this case as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Consumer Case No.1350 of 2017 titled “Ratesh Lohan Versus IREO Fiveriver Private Limited” decided on 07.12.2017.

9.      The arguments of complainant’s counsel are of no avail because Hon’ble National Commission has clearly opined in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) that not only value of property but interest also is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  

10.    This point has been clearly discussed in reference dated 11.08.2016 which is as under:

“Reference dated 11.08.2016

          Issue No.(i)

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.

          Issue No.(iii)

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer forum.”

­­­

This opinion is reiterated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’s case (supra) that value of flat alongwith interest etc. is to be taken into consideration and not only the amount sought to be refunded.

 

11.    This view was also followed by Hon’ble National Commission Santosh Arya’s case (supra). For ready reference relevant Para No.3 of this judgment is also reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. The act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer.”

 

12.    Hon’ble National Commission has opined accordingly in other case titled “TDI Infrastructure Limited Versus Pradeep Mathur; 2015 LawSuit(CO) 1866 that value of property is to be taken into consideration for deciding the dispute. So it cannot be alleged by learned counsel for complainant that value of goods or services cannot be taken into consideration. Complainant cannot derive any benefit from cited case law because this is based on different facts. When learned District Forum was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute, it was not supposed to go into merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Versus Director, Health Services, Haryana and others; (2013) 10 SCC 136 and 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.

13.    As a sequel to above discussions, impugned order dated 02.01.2017 is set aside. Appeal No.684 of 2017 is allowed and appeal No.983 of 2017 is dismissed.

14.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.684 of 2017 be refunded to appellant i.e. M/s Supertech Limited against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

15.    Certified copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal No.983 of 2017.

 

Announced 25.04.2018.

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

D.R.