DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 156/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Ms. MALLIKA PAL
W/o Mr. Gurudas Pal,
R/o J 189 Vijay Rattan Vihar,
Sector 15, Part II, Gurgoan (Haryana)
VERSUS
Earth Iconic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
At 26, First floor, Karol Bagh,
Pusa Road, New Delhi-110005
.. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
- Ms. Mallika Pal (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging therein she had booked a flat in the project called Earth Titanium Studios of M/s Earth Iconic Infrastructure ltd (in short the OP) at Plot no. TZ-06, Techzone, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for a total sum of Rs. 18,53,280/- . OP failed to raise construction within the stipulated period of time. Complainant accordingly requested for refund of his paid amount with interest which OP has not paid. Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to the
OP to refund to him a sum of a Rs. 3,18,764/-with interest @ 18 % p.a.from the date the said amount became due till realization, Rs. 1 lacs as compensation on account of deficiency in service, Rs. 5,00,000/- as
compensation on account of causing mental and physical agony as well asfinancial distress.
- We have heard Sh. Achin Goyal counsel for the complainant on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
- Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Smt. Shivani Sharma and Shri Aditya Sharma Vs. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., vide its order dated 10 October 2017, observed that the complainant had sought refund of an amount of Rs. 26,10,256 (comprising of Rs.10,20,255/- (the amount paid by the complainants from their own funds) + Rs.15,90,001/-(loan amt, paid by the Bank to the OP ), Rs. 2,42,104/- paid by the complainant towards interest and Rs. 10,000/- paid towards loan processing charges with interest @ 12% per annum and Rs. 20 Lacs for deficiency in service. It was held that
‘’Compensation is in any case to be added to the value of good for determining pecuniary jurisdiction as contemplated in the Act. Interest cannot be
ignored for the purpose, as apparently interest and compensation are the component of the same project. Infact as per the law settled both interest and compensation can, be granted, depending on the facts of the case. In the event the deficiency of service is established, the sufferer in our view is entitled to both, interest for the delayed period and compensation for the harassment and mental agony caused to him due to alleged deficiency.
Their Lordship in the matter of Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank - AIR 2007 SC 2198 - has held.
".........the complainant can be awarded the compensation in addition to the interest".
The Hon'ble NCDRC while disposing of the complaint case no.213/2012 on 14.03.2016 in the matter of Vijay Kumar Arya vs. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. passed following orders.
"In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to pay Rs.38,20,000/- alongwith
interest @12% from the date of deposit by the complainant till the date of refund by the OP. The OP is further directed to pay Rs. One Lakh as compensation."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and following the ratio in the case of Ambrish Shukla (Supra) we find merit in the application filed by the opposite parties praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and we order accordingly. ‘’
6. In Shri Ravi Raj Chawla vs. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Complaint No. 877/2017 vide its order dated 31/05/2017 Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission noted that Complainant had prayed for refund of Rs. 58,27,886/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum compounded on the said sum till the date of actual realization of the payment. Hon’ble Delhi State Commission held that complaint was not maintainable as the Commission did not enjoy pecuniary jurisdiction. It was observed that :
‘’Total amount, the amount claimed and the
Interest has to be computed for arriving at a
decision whether State Commission enjoys
pecuniary jurisdiction or not’’
- Complainant has demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony suffered. He has also claimed interest on Rs. 3,18,764/- @ 18% from the date of the said amount became due and payable to her till realization. Total sale consideration of the flat is Rs. 18,53,280/-. If the amount of interest and compensation claimed is added to the sale consideration, the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum.
- As per Section 11 (i) of the Act the District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where the value of goods and services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20 Lacs.
- Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016 observed that value of goods & services and value of the relief claimed is to be seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of alleged deficiency.
- The same question again came up before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the
-
- In another case titled Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) was again referred and following relevant part of the said judgment was quoted:
“Reference order dated 11.8.2016 Issue No. (i) It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that 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.1.00 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.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakh, 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.1.00 Crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”
- The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial
help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainanthad already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full andfinal settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of
the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seizedthe vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition.The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles.Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the HighCourt of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services Indiataking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant.The complainant hence filed aConsumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice andfor directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles.The State
Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. TheHon’ble National
Commission observed that :
“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh, the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-. Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.
<>11.“In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint, where the value of the goods or services as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint,
exceeds Rupees One Crore. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016, the value of services in such cases, means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. The following view was taken by this commission in CC/198/2015 Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters, decided on 31.01.2017. ‘’
- Since this forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, the instant complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this _______ Day of ______ 2018.
