Complainant through Adv. Shaikh
Opponents through Adv. Rahul Gandhi
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(11/10/2013)
This complaint is filed by the flat owner against Builder and Developer under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service. The brief facts are as follows,
1] It is the case of the complainants that, they have agreed to purchase flat from the opponent at Kondhawa Budruk in the building known as “Eisha Bella Vista” Phase II for Rs. 29,16,936/- on 5/3/2010. The complainants have paid entire consideration amount to the opponent as per the agreement. However, the opponent has failed to deliver the possession of the flat asking interest on the amount which was delayed by the complainants. The complainants have demanded compensation for mental and physical harassment, rental loss of Rs. 90,000/- and cost of the litigation.
2] The opponent resisted the claim by filing written version. The contents of the complaint are denied by the opponent. According to the opponent, the complainants are the defaulters. They have not paid the installments as per the terms and condition of the agreement; hence they are liable to pay interest on the said installments. The opponent has every right to terminate the agreement, if interest is not paid. The opponent has denied that it has caused deficiency in service. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] Subsequently, the opponent has filed an application on 10/7/2013 and raised objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. According to them, the complainants have demanded the possession of the flat in dispute as well as compensation. The price of the flat is more than 20 lacs. The valuation of the claim is more than 20 lacs and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present
complaint. The opponent has prayed for returning the complaint to the complainant for presenting the same before proper forum.
4] This application is resisted by the complainant. According to the complainant, initially the opponent has not raised objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Forum while filing written version. Hence, the said objection can not be raised at subsequent stage. According to the complainant, the valuation of the claim is made on the basis of compensation and interest, which is claimed by the opponent and the price of the flat has no concern with the valuation. The complainant has prayed for dismissal of the application.
5] After scrutinizing the documents, which are produced on the record by both the parties, and hearing arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint? | In the negative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is returned to the complainants for presenting it before the proper Forum. |
REASONS :-
6] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainants have sought possession of the flat from the opponent, which is worth of Rs. 29,16,936/-. It is also not in much dispute that the complainants have asked compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and rental loss of Rs. 90,000/-. The complainants have also asked interest @ 24% on the consideration, which is paid to the complainant for delaying the project. It is the case of the complainants that the valuation of the flat has no concern with the pecuniary jurisdiction, as complainants have asked compensation for deficiency in service. The complainants have referred certain rulings in the written argument, but it reveals from the same that the facts of the said rulings and the present proceeding are not identical and hence these rulings are not helpful to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
The opponent has placed reliance on the recent ruling in consumer case no. 93/2012, “Kishori Lal Bablani V/S M/S Aditya Enterprises & 4 Ors.” which is decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 29/05/2012.
The similar dispute was raised before National Commission. As per the said facts, the complainants have asked possession of the flat, which is worth of Rs. 40,75,000/- and the complainant has also
asked compensation and interest as well as rental losses. It has been observed by the National Commission in para 3 of the judgment that,
“As noted above, the complainant mainly seeks the
possession of the flat in question which he purchased
at a price of Rs. 40,70,000/- besides some interest
and compensation. We are, therefore, of the considered
opinion that valuation of the claim made by the complainant
cannot in any case exceed Rupees One crore. As per the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint
where claim is upto Rupees One crore, is to be filed before
the State Commission having jurisdiction in the matter. We,
therefore, hold that this Commission has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.”
In the light of observation made by Hon’ble National Commission, it is crystal clear that the price of the flat is relevant, if the complainants have asked possession of the flat. In such circumstances, I held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. I answer the points accordingly and pass following order.
** ORDER**
1. The complaint is returned to the complainants
for presenting the same before Hon’ble State
Commission within 6 weeks from the date of order.
2. In the peculiar circumstances, there is no order
as to the cost.
