12.08.2016
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT.
This order relates to hearing on admission. The complaint has been filed by Hetamsaria Estates Private Limited contending, inter alia, that the Complainant Company booked a flat for the use of its Directors at a total consideration of Rs.1,93,10,000/- out of which the Complainant paid Rs.1,57,06,080/-. The construction has not been completed and possession has not been delivered. Under such circumstances, the Complainant Company has prayed for following directions upon the O.Ps:-
- To pay damages upon breach of contract @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. from the date of default i.e. 1st October, 2011 till actual date of handing over possession;
- To pay interest on the consideration paid @ 12% per annum from the date of payment of last instalment i.e. 07.02.2014 till actual date of possession;
- To pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice;
- To pay Rs.5,00,000/- by way of compensation;
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has referred to the decisions reported in II (2014) CPJ 635 (NC) [Omaxe Ltd. – vs. – Iqbal Begum & Anr.]; the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4193 of 1995 [Laxmi Engineering Works – vs. – P.S.G. Industrial Institute]. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction would be determined as per the prayer made in the complaint which is below Rs.1 crore.
We have heard the submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and perused the papers on record. Firstly, it is the admitted case that the total consideration is Rs.1,93,10,000/- out of which Complainant has paid Rs.1,57,06,080/-. In the decision reported in 2015 (4) CPR 34 (NC) [Swarn Talwar & Ors. – vs. – Unitech Ltd.] it has been held that interest should be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the admitted amount of consideration money paid exceeds Rs.1 crore, we are of the view that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In this regard, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1996 (2) CPR 26 (NC) [M/s. Quality Foils India Limited – vs. – Bank of Madura Limited & Anr.] wherein it has been held that the total value of goods and/or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In another decision it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in RP 2679 of 2011 and RP 2680 of 2011 [P. S. Srijan Enclave & Ors. – vs. – Sanjeev Bhargav & Sanjay Dewan] 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, otherwise a dispute related to a house property worth several crores of rupees would fall within the jurisdiction of a District Forum if the total deposit were any amount upto Rs.20,00,000/-.
Secondly, it is settled position of law that a private limited company cannot maintain a consumer complaint. In this connection, we rely on the decision reported in 2012 (2) CPR 68 (NC) [M/s. MCS Computer Service (P) Ltd. – vs. – M/s. Allena Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd] = Private limited company cannot file complaint under C. P. Act. In another decision reported in 2016 (1) CPR 258 (NC) [Alpha Therm Ltd. – vs. – Unitech Ltd.] it has been held that Company cannot maintain consumer complaint.
The Hon’ble National Commission in Complaint Case No. 112 of 2012 [M/s. Purusharath Builders Pvt. Ltd. – vs. – Uppal Housing Ltd. & Anr.] decided on 05.07.2012 held that booking of flat for the use of the officers of the Company is meant for commercial purpose and the complaint being not maintainable was dismissed.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the view that the decisions referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The petition of complaint is not maintainable.
Hence, it is ordered that the petition of complaint is dismissed being not maintainable.
