BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 21^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint came to be filed on 05.02.2019 under Section 12 of C.P.Act by paying Rs.400/- as court fee and for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.11,90,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of receipt till the date of payment.

(b) and cost of proceedings.

(c) grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant agreed to produce 3 BHK flat No.45 from the OP under confirmation letter dated 11.02.2013 for sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-.  The complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- and memo of understanding came to be executed on 28.08.2012.  The complainant has paid in all Rs.11,90,000/- part of the consideration amount by means of cheque and cash between 19.11.2011 to 24.06.2016.

3. It is further case of the complainant that the OPs failed to take project which is not free from litigation.  The OPs failed to refund amount received with interest at 12% p.a.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.

4. Despite receipt of notice, the OPs failed to appear and OPs have been placed exparte.

 5. The complainant fails to file affidavit evidence.  No argument is advanced on behalf of the complainant.

6. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether District Consumer Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction on the date of filing the complaint i.e. 05.02.2019?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point Nos.2 and 3: Do not survive for consideration

      Point No.4: As per final orders

REASONS

8. No.1:  Even though, OPs neither appeared nor filed version.  The complainant is also not produced evidence. However, it is necessary to perused the allegations made in the complaint with supporting documents.  The complainant claims refund of Rs.11,90,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of amount till payment.
9. According to the complainant, he has paid in all Rs.11,90,000/- to the OPs in the following manner:-

1. Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.196626 dated 19.11.2011.
2. Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.196635 dated 13.02.2013.
3.  Dated Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.196627 dated 22.11.2011.
4. Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash dated 14.02.2013 receipt No.2952.
5. Rs.50,000/- by way of cash dated 14.02.2013 receipt No.3491.
6. Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash dated 14.02.2013.
7. Rs.90,000/- dated 24.06.2016.

10. The complainant has produced memorandum of understanding, agreement of sale and receipts.  According to the complainant, the value of the flat to be purchased by him worth Rs.14,00,000/-.  Memorandum of understanding speaks about consideration.  It indicates that the complainant agreed to pay the sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-.  It means, the value of the flat is Rs.14,00,000/-.  However, the complainant claims refund of Rs.11,90,000/- with 12% p.a. interest.  The claim of the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. requires to be calculated from the date of respective payment till filing the complaint as mentioned in para 10 of the complaint. The interest portion would be Rs.8,85,000/-.
11. The question arises, whether District Consumer Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on 05.02.2019.  The complainant has paid only Rs.400/- as court fee on the claim amount.
12. It is relevant to refer Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986 which read thus:-

11(1): 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 rupees five lakhs).  

13. According to the above provision for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Consumer Forum, the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction shall be determined on the value of goods or services and amount claimed.  According to the complainant, the value of the flat was Rs.14,00,000/- and claim of the complainant is Rs.11,90,000/- + interest of Rs.8,85,000/-.  Therefore, the complainant was supposed to value the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs.14,00,000/- + Rs.11,90,000/- + Rs.8,85,000/- total Rs.34,75,000/-. 
14. On the date of filing the complaint, the District Consumer Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.20,00,000/- only.  When the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction as stated above, the complainant in the complaint and reliefs claimed are taken into consideration, the reliefs is more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, on the date of filing this complaint, the District Consumer Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction.
15. This reasoning of us is supported by the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission reported in the following decisions:-

1. 2018 (2) CPR 111 in the matter between Gurmukh Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another. The Honb’le National Commission referring the earlier judgement of Larger Bench in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,, wherein it was held in para 6 which read thus:-

Para 6:- A three-member bench of this Commission in their order on 07.10.2016, stated as under on the issue referred above:-

It is the value of the goods or services as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. III (2018) CPJ 370 (NC) in the matter between Renu Singh Vs. Experion Development Pvt. Ltd., where in it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 29(1)(g), 21(a)(ii) – Pecuniary jurisdiction – booking of residential unit – builder-buyer agreement – Terms and conditions not agreed upon, Refund of deposited amount sought, alleged deficiency in service – State Commission dismissed complaint – Hence, appeal value of unit itself is Rs.1,28,84,474/- - Pecuniary jurisdiction in complaint is not before the State Commission but it is before the National Commission – No perversity in well reasoned order passed by State Commission.

16. It is relevant to note that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has come into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020 wherein the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is enhanced to Rs.1 crore.  The question arises, whether this complaint can be continued under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
17. We are of the opinion that the complaint filed under the provision of C.P.Act, 1986 cannot be continued under the new Act and value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction mentioned in C.P.Act 2019 cannot be taken into consideration to continue this proceeding which has been initiated under C.P.Act, 1986.
18. This reasoning of us is supported by the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission:-

1. 2021 (2) CPR 398 in the matter of Neena Aneja Vs. Jain Prakash Associates Ltd., dated 16^th March, 2021.  It  is relevant to refer to para 71 of the judgement which read thus:-

71. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.  While allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned judgement and order of the NCDRC dated 30 July 2020 and the review order dated 5 October 2020, directing a previously instituted consumer case under the Act of 1986 to be filled before the appropriate forum in terms of the pecuniary limits set under the Act of 2019, shall stand set aside;

(ii) As a consequence of (i) above, the national Commission shall continue hearing the consumer case instituted by the appellants;

(iii) All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 as explained above and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019 and

iv) The respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant quantified at Rupees two lakhs which shall be payable within four weeks.

2. Case No.833/200 in the matter between M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and three others dated 28.08.2020 at para 10 read thus:-

Para 10:- From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/taken.  Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations.

19. On the date of filing the complaint, this District Consumer Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the complaint cannot be continued under C.P.Act, 2019.
20. Point Nos.2 and 3:- It is settled preposition of law that District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it cannot be continued the proceeding under new C.P.Act, 2019.  Therefore, these two points do not survive for consideration. 
21. Point No.4:- In view of discussion made in point No.1 and referred above, the complaint is not maintainable before this District Consumer Forum and it cannot be continued under the new C.P.Act, 2019.  Therefore, the complaint requires to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Commission which had pecuniary jurisdiction on 05.02.2019.   Hence, we proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint was not maintainable on 05.02.2019 for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and complaint cannot be continued under new C.P.Act, 2019.
2. Return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Commission, Bengaluru.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both parties as per law.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^st day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-