DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE NO. 205/2017

MA-276/2017

    Date of Filing:                                                                 Date of Disposal:

     09.11.2017                                                                         14.11.2017

 Complainants:-      1.  Sri. Shymal Kumar Bandopadhyay.

                                   2.  Sri. Kamal Bondhopadhyay, Both are the

                                        Son of Late Bimal Krishna Bandopadhyay.

                                  3.  Smt. Mira Mondal, W/o Mridul Mondal.

                                  4.  Smt. Hira Bhattacharjee, W/o Haradhan Bhattacharjee.

                                  5.  Smt. Gouri Banerjee, W/o Sukhdev Banerjee.

                                 6. Subhankar Banerjee, S/o Late Sukhdev Banerjee.

                                 7. Smt. Soma Mukherjee, W/o Uday Mukherjee,

                                     All are residents of Taranath Banerjee Road,

                                     P.O.-Panihati, P.S.- Khardah, Kolkata-700 114.

                                                                    Vs.

Opposite Party:- 1) Sri. Nirmal Singha, S/o Late Niranjan Singha,

                                     Arbindapally, Harish Chandra Dutta Road,

                                     P.O.-Sukchar, P.S.-Khardah, Kolkata-700 115.

 P R E S E N T :-   Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.

                         :-   Sri. Siddharta Ganguli  ….………………………Member.

                         :-  Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.

ORDER: 07

This order is arising out of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the OP being no-276/2017 in the Consumer Complaint no-205/2017 challenging the maintainability of this complaint on the point of its pecuniary jurisdiction.

In the application it is stated by the OP that the total valuation of this complaint is more than 20,00,000/- which cannot be adjudicated/entertained by this Ld. Forum. On this score the OP has prayed for dismissal of this complaint. According to the OP if this application is not allowed, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

The copy of the said application has been duly received by the Complainants. The Complainants have stated that this complaint is very well maintainable before this Ld. Forum as the total valuation of the claim in the petition of complaint has not been exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum and moreover at the time of filing of the complaint the concerned authority had checked the issue on dispute. According to the Complainants the application filed by the OP is liable to be dismissed being misconceived one.

We have carefully perused the content of the application and objection thereto and heard argument at length advanced by the contesting parties. It is seen by us that in the paragraph no-15 of the petition of complaint it is mentioned by the Complainants that the valuation of this complaint is assessed for Rs.16,80,000/-. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has argued that in the paragraph no-14 of the petition of complaint it is stated by the Complainants that the OP is liable to pay monthly house rent of Rs.10,000/- per month for 48 months to the Complainants due to failure of completion of the construction of the new building as per the agreement in which both parties have entered into. In this way the Complainants have claimed further Rs.4,80,000/- towards the house rent. According to the OP the said amount of Rs.4,80,000/- should be added with Rs.16,80,000/- and with the total amount the compensation as sought for will also be added and then the complaint will go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. According to the OP the total valuation of this complaint is for Rs.16,80,000/- + Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- =Rs.22,60,000/-, which does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this ld. Forum.

But in this respect we are to say that in the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is enumerated that ‘the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the compliant where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. In the case in hand admittedly the value of the service is for Rs.16,80,000/- and the Complainants have prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP, hence the total valuation is coming for Rs.17,80,000/- which is very well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. In this connection there are plethora of judgment i.e. Quality Foils (NC), Ambrish Sukla (NC) etc. Therefore as the application filed by the OP has no merit , hence it does not stand.

Hence it is ordered that the MA-276/2017 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.

Fix …………… for filing written version by the OP. It is evident that the OP appeared before this Ld. Forum on 07.07.2017. Since then as more than 45 days have expired for filing written version, hence written can be filed by the OP subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/-. Out of which Rs.500/- be payable to the SCWF and the balance amount to the Complainants. To date for filing written version and payment of cost.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.              

Member                                               Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me: