Delhi

New Delhi

CC/160/2017

Rajiv Mehta & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                  (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./160/2017                                                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

1.         Rajiv Mehta

S/o Late Shri K.K. Mehta

 

2.           Mrs. Manju Mehta

W/o Mr. Rajiv Mehta

Both R/o B-27 Shrivalik

New Delhi-17                                                                   …… Complainant

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

1.           BPTP Ltd.

Through its managing Director/ Chairman

M-11, Middle Circus

New Delhi-1……. Opposite party-1

 

2.           Business Park Maintenance Service

Through its managing director/Chairman

M-11, Middle Circle

Connaught Circus

New Delhi-1……. Opposite party-2

 

 

H.M. VYAS -MEMBER

ORDER

          Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against BPTP Ltd., hereinafter  referred to as OP praying for reliefs as under :-

 

1.  OP no.-1 will, pay penalty for delayed possession for 35 months @ mentioned in the agreement i.e. Rs. 5 per sq. Ft. per month, which comes to Rs. .3.34250 and

 

2. OP no. 1 will pay an amount of Rs.  3.23 lakhs, taken as extra amount against the cost of the flat and

 

3. OP no.1 will pay an amount of Rs. 80,000 taken extra for stamp duty from the complainants  and

 

4. OP no.1 will pay an amount of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to the complainants to remove the inherent defects in the flat and for doing final finishing of paint/polish to make the flat habitable and

 

5. The OP no.2 will refund an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 taken as maintenance charges upto date and will not charge maintenance  charges further till flat becomes habitable and

 

6.  The OP no. 1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainants for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to them because of inaction, deficiency and negligence of OPs and

 

7. The OPs are liable to pay interest @ 18% on above amounts and are liable pay cost of proceedings to the complainants and therefore OP  no.1 is liable to pay Rs. 11,87,250/- and OP no. 2 liable to pay Rs. 01,50,000/-.

 

Such other or further orders may be passed as this Hon’ble District Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

                                              

          OP was noticed and the matter was contested by it. OP had filed written statement.

            Application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction filed on behalf of the OP on 13/02/2018.

The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 26.2.2018, on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction we have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the records.

The complainant argued on the point regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum that though  the basic sale price of the plot in question is  Rs. 23,47,800/- as mentioned in the complainant itself however, the relief claimed is less than 20 lac and so this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

For this purpose we may advert to Section 11of the Act:-

Section11:- (1) Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .

                    (2) X             X                X                    X                        X                            X                       X

Para 14 of the judgement Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Reported as manu CF/0499/2016  is reproduced below:-

It is evident from a bare perusal of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act and it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the  pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction  to entertain  the complaint . For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the consumer for the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1 crore.

The Hon’ble National Commission has taken similar view also in the case of Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17 and in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155.  

This view is also adopted by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Complaint Case no. 119/12 Ambica Steel Ltd., Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

In the light of the judgement in the case Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, reported as manu CF/0499/2016 and other cases (supra) we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and therefore, the complaint is directed to be returned to complainant with following particulars in the light of the decision  of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on 30/03/2017

• Date of return of complaint  06/03/2018

• The name of complainant(s)

 

1.             Rajiv Mehta

S/o Late Shri K.K. Mehta

 

2.               Mrs. Manju Mehta

W/o Mr. Rajiv Mehta

Both R/o B-27 Shrivalik

New Delhi-17

                                                           

• Brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint.

The judgement in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC came on 07/10/2016, and the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, it is clear that  the cost of the flat is more than 20 lac and as such  the aggregate value of the  alleged flat and reliefs  claimed exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum.

Keeping in view provision of law and the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC referred to above, as this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case we order  return of the complaint to with liberty  to complainant to file it before the appropriate forum.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum on 06/03/2018. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

 

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

            (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER