31.10.2014

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order (No. 21) dated 27.8.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in Case No. 202/10, dismissing the Petition of Complaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

          The facts, which are relevant to and pertinent for the adjudication of the case, are set out in a nutshell hereunder.

          The Appellants/Complainants have booked with the Respondent/OP a flat No. 1504 of Block No. 1, Harmony, Kolkata, for a total consideration of Rs. 60,42,790/- (Petition of Complaint – Running Page-3/Payment Schedule  accompanying Allotment Letter- Running Page-25) on payment of Application Money of Rs. 5,70,276/- by Cheque No. 121181976 dt. 14.8.2008.  Thereafter, the Appellants/Complainants intended to withdraw themselves from the said transaction and informed the Respondent/OP accordingly by a letter dated. 6.11.2008 (Running Page-57 of the Petition of Complaint) with a request to the Respondent/OP for refund of the Application Money paid.  But the Respondent/OP did not respond favourably.  In this backdrop, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order, dismissing the Complaint as mentioned earlier.  Aggrieved by such impugned judgment and order the Appellants/Complainants have carried the Appeal before this Commission.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/Complainants submits that the Ld. District Forum has erred in considering the total value of the flat, instead of the value of the reliefs claimed, in determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that as the reliefs claimed in the Petition of Complaint is Rs. 60,000/- only (Compensation = Rs. 50,000/- + Litigation Cost: Rs. 10,000/-) apart from refund of Rs.5,70,276.50 representing the Application Money paid, which is far below Rs. 20,00,000/-, the instant case was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  The Ld. Advocate concludes that in this view of the case, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being illegal and improper.

          Per contra,  the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/OP submits that the aggregate value of the flat in question as well as of relief claimed determines the pecuniary jurisdiction and hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, and hence, the same, the Ld. Advocate concludes, should be upheld.  In this context, the Ld. Advocate refers to a decision in M/s. Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr., reported in 1996 (2) CPR 26 (NC).

          We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and order.

          The Petition of Complaint itself demonstrates that it is the admitted position of the Appellants/Complainants that the total consideration of the flat was Rs. 60,42,790/- (Running Page-3 of Petition of Complaint). The Payment schedule (Running Page-25) as contained in the Allotment Letter (Running Page-24) also corroborates the above value of the flat in question.

          The well-settled law related to the present issue is that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction the aggregate value of the goods or services and of reliefs claimed shall have to be taken into consideration.  In this matter, we find force in the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/OP.

          In view of the foregoing discussion we find no such illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order that warrants interference by this Commission.

          In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment and order by the Ld. District Forum is affirmed.  No order as to costs.

          The Appellants/Complainants are at liberty to file the Petition of Complaint on the self-same ground before the appropriate forum.