West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/93/2015

Sayantan Chatterjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Barun Prasad Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Debiprasad Chakraborty

25 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

                                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint Case No.93/2015

 

Sayantan Chatterjee & another………...……Complainants.

Versus

Barun Prasad Singh & another…….…Opp. Parties.

                                                         

    Order No.15.                                                                                               Date : 25/05/2016                                                                      

 

                        The case record is put up before us for passing order.

                   This hearing arises regarding maintainability of this case, as raised by the opposite party no.2 in her petition dated 21/03/2016. It has been stated by the opposite party no.2 in the said petition dated 21/03/2016 that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum since the aggregate value of the flats in question of the complainants with that of the demand of compensation crosses the pecuniary limit of this Forum and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as enumerated is Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.  In paragraph 2 of the said petition it has been contended by the opposite party no.2 that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.  It has been further stated in paragraph 3 of the said petition that the value of the properties in question is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore) and the amount of compensation claimed by the complainants in the instant case is amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- (eight lakhs) and accordingly the instant complaint surpasses the pecuniary jurisdiction of the instant Forum.

               As against this, it is the case of the complainants as stated in their written objection filed against the said petition that the prayer of the complainants in this case is for some repairing and for providing spaces for garages and some other reliefs amounting to Rs.4,24,158/- and for compensation and litigation cost which do not exceed Rs.20 lakhs .

Contd…………….P/2

 

( 2 )

                The present petition of complaint has been filed by as many as eight complainants,

who purchased the flats in question from the opposite parties alleging certain deficiency  in service after purchase of those flats and praying for certain reliefs in respect of such deficiencies against the opposite parties.

               At the time of hearing on the point of maintainability, as alleged by the opposite parties, Ld. Lawyer of the complainants submitted that in this case the complainants have prayed for directing the opposite parties to rectify some deficiency in service for which an amount of Rs.4,24,158/- along with compensation and litigation cost has been prayed and their such claim as prayed for does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- and as such the petition filed by the opposite party no.2 is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed.  .  

                 Regarding the question of pecuniary jurisdiction, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party no.2 submitted at the time of hearing that from the copies of sale deeds in respect of the flats in question,  so filed by the complainants it would appear that the total value of the flats of the complainants as a whole is above Rs.77,00,000/-  and as such in view of Section-11(1) of the C. P. Act, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case. In reply to such objection, Ld. Lawyer for the complainants submitted that pecuniary jurisdiction depends upon the claim made by the complainants and not upon the value of the subjected flats. It has been further submitted that in the present case the complainants have filed this case alleging some deficiency in service and the reliefs prayed for such deficiency in service do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.20,00,000/- of this Forum. 

                    At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party no.2 referred two decisions, one of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in Revision Petition No.2679 of 2011 on 12/03/2012 and another decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal passed in Complain Case No. CC/173/2012 on 18/09/2015.                                                                                                               

                   We have gone through the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Commission and found that it has been held by the Hon’ble Commission that the it is the settled law that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.   

                On perusal of the copies of sale deeds in respect of the flats in question so filed by the complainants we find that the total value of the said flats of the complainants is above Rs.77,00,000/-.  So in view of such decisions of the Hon’ble Commissions, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case as the dispute relating to the value of the flats  in

Contd…………….P/3

 

 

( 3 )

 question and the reliefs claimed regarding the  service thereof is above Rs. 20,00,000/-. (twenty lakhs).

                It is therefore held this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case and therefore the petition dated 21/03/2016, filed by the opposite party no.2, stands allowed.

                              Hence, it is,

                                                    ORDERED

                               that the petition dated 21/03/2016, filed by the opposite party no.2, is  allowed on contest and consequently the complaint case no.93/2015 is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  However, in the present circumstances, we make no order as to cost.

                  Let copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and Corrected by me

        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                     Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.                         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

               President                                        Member                                              President

                                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur