26..... 22/08/2019....

Record is taken up for passing necessary order.

This case was once disposed of by this Forum, though exparte and the O.P-1 preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission being FA no.A/1237/16 and the Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to direct this Forum by its order dated 2.1.2018 as follows :-

“The case is remitted back on remand with a direction upon the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 30.01.2018 and on that date the respondent/complainant is directed t file an application for amendment of petition of complaint showing valuation of the property in accordance with Section 11(1) of the Act an d the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors.(Supra) . The Ld. District Forum is requested to hear on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction first and then to enter into merits of the case. If the respondents/complainants chooses to ‘not press’ the petition of complaint, they shall have liberty to file the complaint afresh in respect of the same cause of action in the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain the same”.

In view of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble State Commission, this Forum should look into the matter of valuation of the property involved in this case in accordance with Section 11(1) of C.P Act, 1986 and the decision  of larger bench in the case of Ambrish Kumar Sukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Ltd. reported in I (2017) CPJ 1(NC).

O.P-1 has also filed a petition dated 24.7.2019 ,wherein it is submitted that the valuation of the property exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and, therefore, this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to try this case.

Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Considered the materials placed on record.

Ld. Lawyer appearing for O.P-1 has contended that the market value of the subject flat was Rs.37,95,663/- and in addition to that the complainants have also prayed for compensation amounting to Rs. 15,80,000. So, according to him, this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the said case.

Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has submitted that the compensation money will not be included in the valuation of the property and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on a ruling reported in IV (2004) CPJ 64 (Mah) (Dilip Dankodar Soparkar Vs. Network Construction Pvt. Ltd.)

Now to see, whether the compensation money claimed by the complainant is to be included within the valuation of the subject goods or the services hired or availed. The guideline is clearly provided under section 11(1)  , C.P Act, 1986 which reads as follows:-

“Section 11.  Jurisdiction of the District Forum -  (1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20 lac”.

In the case of Ambrish Kumar Sukla (Supra) it has also been held by a 3 Judge Bench of Hon’ble National Commission that the compensation amount will also be taken into account by the Fora while proceeding to determine the valuation of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer.

Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the case is filed on 9.9.2015 and this being so, the complainants are required to value the case on the basis of the market price of the services hired or availed of by them, prevailing in the year 2015. To prove the valuation of the subject flat, the O.P-1 has filed a Certificate of market value issued from the office of the ADSR, Alipore , District South 24-Parganas and it is available therefrom that the market value as determined by the said office of the Government for a flat measuring 960 sq.ft plus a car parking space is Rs.26,36,640/-. Relying on this valuation, it is ascertained that the value of the flat was Rs.2746.50 per sq.ft at that time i.e in the year 2012.

In the instant case, here is only a residential flat measuring 1382 sq.ft. No car parking space is involved in this case. This being the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the market price of the flat may well be determined tobe Rs.2000/- per sq.ft as in the year 2012. This being so, the total value of the flat stands at Rs.27,64,000/- ( Rs.2000/-  x  1382 sq.ft). To this is added compensation amount of Rs.15,80,000/- as claimed by the complainants in their petition of complaint. So, the total value of the flat stands at Rs.43,44,000/- and this valuation of the flat is regarded as the valuation of the services claimed by the complainants in the year 2012. Such valuation cannot be reasonably expected to depreciate in the year 2015- i.e the year of filing the instant case . As the valuation of the service exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the case and, therefore, the petition of complaint should be returned to the complainants for presentation to the proper Forum.

Hence,

                                                            ORDERED

That the petition of complaint be returned to the complainants for presentation to proper Forum.

An endorsement regarding the date of filing of the instant case and date of return of the complaint to the complainants be made upon the petition of complaint.