DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                                        ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/ 377/2016

No. DF/ Central/

Shashikant Rattan Pal

S/o SH B.R. Rattan Pal

R/o GG – 1/56 – B,

Vikaspuri, New Delhi – 110 018

 VERSUS

M/s. Earth Infrastructures Limited

AT 26, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road,

Adjacent to Karol Bagh Metro Station

Delhi – 110005

Also At

A-1, C & D Sector – 16,

Near Metro Station,

Noida – 201301,  Uttar Pradesh

Also At

1501-1503, 15^th Floor,

Tower – A, Signature Tower,

Gurgaon Haryana

                                                                                      …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

                                                              ORDER                              

Rekha Rani, President

1. Sh. Shashikant Rattan 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) pleading therein that in 2012 M/s. Earth Infrastructures Limited (in short the OP ) allured complainant to invest in

their building project.Complainant paid Rs. 1,56,000/- to OP.OP promised to deliver possession of the booked Unit within 02 years from December 2012.OP has failed to honour its promise.Therefore complainant requested OP for refund of his paid amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- but OP has not refunded the said amount.

3.     We have perused the case file and heard Ms. Malti learned counsel for  complainant.  None appeared for OP to address arguments.

4.    In para 1 of the written statement OP has submitted that complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act as he invested money in the project of OP for earning profits.   It is stated that Complainant himself admitted in the complaint that he booked office space for commercial purpose. 

It is also stated that the unit was booked under flexi payment plan in which there is a provision of assured return as interest on the said booking.   In para 2 at page 2 of the written statement it is pleaded that the total value of the booked unit is Rs. 2080000.00 and 10% of the total value was Rs. 208000.00 which complainant was required to pay to ensure that the unit was booked with the OP.  It is stated that complainant has paid only Rs. 1,56,000/- which is not sufficient for booking of the unit.  Payment plan is reproduced in para 4 at page 4 of the written statement. 

5.    Complainant filed rejoinder.   It is not denied in corresponding para 2 of the rejoinder that total value of the booking unit was Rs. 2080000.00 and 10% of the total value was Rs. 208000.00.  Payment schedule as reproduced in para 4 of the written statement is also not denied in corresponding para of the rejoinder.  Since total value of the booked unit was Rs. 2080000.00, the same is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.                     

6.   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.

7.      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.

8.   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.

9.      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.’’

10.      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.   Objection of the OP that complainant is not a consumer having booked the unit for commercial purpose or for earning assured return cannot be adjudicated here for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced on this 2^nd  Day of  June 2018.