Consumer Complaint No.51 of 2017

Date of filing: 30.3.2017                                                                Date of disposal: 13.4.2017

Complainant:               1. Sri Krishnachura Bhattacherjee, W/o. Sri Rajat Bhattarchejee.

                                    2. Rajat Bhattacherjee, S/o. Late Sashankar Mohan Bhattacharjee, residing at Flat-A, Block – A, Durgapur Residency, Nibedita Place, Benachity, Durgapur, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 213.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:            Banerjee Associates, prop: Rajib Banerjee, S/o. Sri Ramendra Nath Banerjee, Regd. Office at Room No. 4, Commercial Complex (Opp. Jalkhabar Gally), Benachity, Durgapur – 713 213.

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

                        Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Tamal De.

Order No. 03, Dated: 13.4.2017

                      Today is fixed for admission hearing of this complaint. None is present on behalf of the Complainants and no step has been taken by her. It is evident from the record that on 30.03.17 this complaint was filed and the same was fixed for admission hearing on 07.04.2017. On 07.04.2017 adjournment was sought for on behalf of the Complainants and after allowing the said prayer this Ld. Forum was pleased to fix this Consumer Complaint for hearing today on the point of its admissibility.

            As the Complainants did not turn up for admission hearing we have carefully perused the petition of complaint and other related documents as filed by her along with the complaint. It is seen by us that the Complainants purchased one flat which has been already registered in her favour by the OP. From the deed of conveyance as executed by the OP in favour of the purchaser it is evident that the cost of the purchased flat is for Rs.30,00,000/- and the market value of the same is mentioned as Rs.31,71,000=00. In the petition of complaint it is sought for by the Complainants compensation amounting to Rs.7,93,608/- along with an interest on the said amount at the bank rate for a period of 24 months, further compensation for mental agony of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost. Admittedly the Complainant have filed this complaint on the basis of relief sought for but in view of the latest judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 Others Vs. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE Private Limited, dated 07 Oct 2016, this complaint cannot be entertained. In the said judgment it is mentioned that the order dated 11.08.2016, passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 2016, First Appeal No. 504 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 505 of 2016, the following issues were referred, by a single Member Bench of this Commission to the larger Bench:

(i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii) ……………………………………

(iii)…………………………………… etc.

The Hon’ble Commission has been held that ‘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 envisaged 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 lacs, 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 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.

                      The abovementioned observation is applicable in the instant complaint because in the said judgment it is mentioned that in case of any defects or delay possession etc. in the questioned flat, the total value of the questioned flat should be counted along with the amount of compensation as prayed for. In the petition of complaint it is stated by the Complainants that the cost of the questioned flat is for Rs.30,00,000/- and if we add the compensation amount with the cost of the flat, then aggregate will certainly cross the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Be it mentioned that in the case in hand the cost of the flat itself has crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.  Moreover, in the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is enumerated that the ‘District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where the value of the goods or the services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. In the case in hand as the value of the flat exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum hence, in our view the complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum and on this score the complaint should be dismissed.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is

O r d e r e d

 that the Consumer Complaint no. 51/2017 is hereby dismissed without being admitted. However considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to cost. The Complainants are at liberty to approach before the appropriate Court/Forum/Commission, if not barred otherwise, in view of the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428).

            Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the complainants free of cost as per provisions of law.

                   (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                     President       

                                                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                      (Silpi Majumder)                                          

                        Member                                                      

                    DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                   (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)                          (Silpi Majumder)

                                                           Member                                           Member    

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                               DCDRF, Burdwan