ORDER                      

Rekha Rani, President

1. The complainants have  filed  the instant complaint  U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended (in short the Act) praying for direction to EARTH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD (for short the OP) to refund a sum of Rs. 18,30,660/- along with interest @ 12%  p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment , Rs. 1,50,000/- towards  damages for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice inter-alia   on the ground that, complainants had booked a residential unit in Group Housing project with the OP which project has been unreasonably delayed by the OP although the complainants made payment of each installment on due date.
2. On receipt of notice the OP appeared and contested the complaint vide its reply.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant. None appeared on behalf of OP to argue.
4. Complainants  paid Rs 7,41,000/- to the OP for unit no. K-404 in Group Housing project named “ Earth Copia”  was received by the OP vide acknowledgement receipt dated 21.02.2015. Thereafter complainants were allotted Unit no. Q1 -0503 in project “ Earth Towne’ when “Earth Copia”  project got delayed and the OP assured that the money deposited in favour of project “ Earth Copia “ will be transferred to project “Earth Towne” with no deductions. Further it is stated that complainants deposited Rs. 11,09,660/- with OP towards booking of new allotted  unit in the project “Earth Towne”. As such the total deposit received by the OP from the complainant was Rs. 18,50,660/-. 

                      Schedule of payment is given in Para 6 of affidavit of Mr. Ankit Singh AR of OP company tendered by way of evidence.  It reads :

                                                     PAYMENT PLAN

                                         (INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN)

*                             *                             *

                           In para 9 of the complaint it is stated that Rs. 11,09,660/- was deposited by the complainant with the OP towards the booking of unit no. Q1-0503 in project “Earth Towne”. Booking amount is only 10% of the Basic Sale Price of the unit. Even as per the prayer clause complainants have asked for refund of  the total deposit (Rs. 18,50,660/-) with @12 % interest  from the date of deposit till date of realization  plus Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation that  amount also exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs.

            Hon’ble NCDRC in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors (infra) has held that interest has to be added for computing the pecuniary jurisdiction. In  para 14 of the judgment it was held :

 “Therefore in view of the provisions contained in section 12, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the amount of interest which can be paid as compensation, must necessarily be taken into account for determining pecuniary jurisdiction.”

            In  Bangalore Development Authority Vs Syndicate  Bank –AIR 2007 SC 2198 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:

    “……the complainant can be awarded  the compensation in addition to the interest.”

           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 exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs. The amount of refund claimed along with interest @ 12 % p.a. in addition to the amount of compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum prescribed as per Section 11 (i) of the Act.

5. 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 sought is to be   seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of deficiency alleged.
6. 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.

7. 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.”

8. 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”.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings as the court/tribunal/forum is bound to decide the same before proceeding to adjudicate the matter on merits as the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and decision of the court/tribunal/forum without jurisdiction is a nullity which cannot be executed.
10. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) v. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC) = Civil Appeal No. 5476 OF 2013 dated 11/07/2013,Hon’ble Apex Court observed:

  “Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at of the any stage proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/  inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).

11. In Reliance Consumer Finance Vs Randhir Singh First Appeal No. 431 of 2013 the Hon’ble SCDRC , Chandigarh vide order dated 24.12.2013 it was observed that it is settled  principle of law, that the Consumer Fora, at any stage of the proceedings, is duty bound to decide of its own, the legal questions as to whether the complainant within the definition  of a Consumer ; whether it had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; whether the complaint involved the consumer dispute; and whether the consumer complaint was maintainable.  
12. 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 per rules. File be consigned to record room.

           Announced this 14th Day of December 2017.