DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/159/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Om Prakash Gupta
R/o 34, Pocket A – 4,
Sector – 4, Rohini, Delhi – 110085 ……..COMPLAINANT
Versus
Earth Iconic Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.,
26, Ist Floor, Pusa Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005
Through its Director/Manager
Auth. Representative
..…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) pleading therein that complainant booked a space measuring 400 Sq. feets. in the Project ‘’Earth Titanium’’ of Earth Iconic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (in short OP ) at Plot No. TZ-06, Tech Zone, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Complainant paid 10% as booking amount which was Rs. 3.50 Lacs vide cheques bearing no. 944791 & 944799 dated 21/05/2014 and 10/07/2014.
After paying the booking amount OP was required to issue allotment letter /Unit
No. within one month. OP has not issued allotment letter /Unit No. despite
several letters / reminders. OP is pressuring the complainant to deposit next payment of 15% of SLP amount. Hence the complaint seeking direction to OP to refund booking amount of Rs. 3.50 Lacs with interest at the rate of 18% interest from the date of booking along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental strain and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP who appeared and contested the claim vide its reply.
3. We have heard Shri Yoginder Singh Counsel for Complainant, Shri Sunil Wali Counsel for OP.
4. In para 2 and 3 of the complaint, it is mentioned that complainant paid 10% as booking amount amounting to Rs. 3.50 Lacs to the OP for booking space for her earning livelihood. It is reiterated by the complainant in para 4 of Page 5 of the Rejoinder that he had paid 10% booking amount as per the payment plan which was to Rs. 3.50 Lacs. If 10% is Rs. 3.50 Lacs the total amount is certainly more than Rs.20 Lacs. In the application form copy whereof is placed on record and which is duly signed by the complainant in para 19 Rs. 8645/- per sq. feet is stated to be the rate. The complainant had booked 400 sq. feet. As such total sale price was Rs. 34,58,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 OP. Complaint was filed before State
Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum.
The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved
property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only)
National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla
(supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.
8. 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.”
9. 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 complainant had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and final 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 seized the 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 High Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant. The complainant hence filed a Consumer 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 and for 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. The Hon’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”.
10. In Jivitesh Nayal & Anr. vs M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited Case No. 34 of 2015 decided on 02-11-2017 and in Rakesh Mehta vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited Case No. 653 of 2015 decided on 16.10.2007 the National Commission following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed as under:
“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.’’
11. In Gurmukh Singh v/s Greater Mohali Area Development Revision Petition No. 3496/2017 against order dated 11.10.2017 in appeal no. 464/2017 of State Commission, Punjab. Complainant Gurmukh Singh applied for allotment of an apartment with Greater Mohali Area Development (OP). He deposited total amount of Rs. 11,10,000/- in January 2013. He requested OP for refund of the amount deposited by him on the ground that his financial position was not good. Complainant submitted in the consumer complaint that he received a partial refund of Rs. 5,96,091/- and in this way suffered loss of Rs. 4,76,910/-. He filed consumer complainant in question seeking refund of the said amount along with another Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of borrowing the funds. He sought direction to OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,67,910/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost. District forum ordered return of the complaint following the decision of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (Supra). State Commission dismissed the appeal. National Commission dismissed the revision petition observing that total value of goods and services is to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a forum and not the total amount paid by an allotte.
12. Accordingly, although in the present case complainant is seeking refund of amount deposited by him with OP i.e. Rs. 3.50 Lacs plus compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 11,000/- the total sale price being more than Rs. 20 Lacs, this forum has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. 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 25th Day of October 2018.
