Order No. 21     Date : 31.12.2019

            Record  is put up for order.

            The instant order arising out of an application dated 21.08.2019 filed by the OP-1 praying for dismissal of the consumer complaint on the ground of non maintainability.

            In course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the OP-1 has contended that this Forum have lack of pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain  the instant consumer complaint as the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the complainant for availing the services is to be considered  along with compensation, cost and interest and such amount would be clubbed together. She has further submitted that the market value of the flat clubbed with compensation claim is more than Rs.20 lakhs and the value of the flat in question is Rs.37,04,225/- which  exists the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. To support this argument, the Ld. Advocate for the OP-1 relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in IV (2018) CPJ 492 (NC) Gurmukh Singh -Vs- Greater Mohali Area Development Authority  & Anr. ‘.

            Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant  has contended that  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not specifically lay down  as to how a complaint is to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction. However, the Hon’ble NCDRC is consistent with the view that it is the total value of the goods and or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.  He has further contended that in the instant case the total value of the goods and service is not the question and the motto of the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get the services or not. As such, this does not have any relation of the entire value of the  flat in question. According to him, the complainant has never asked for any refund of the flat value and his only prayer is alteration of window. As such, this Forum have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

            We have heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and examined the entire material on record and also given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

            In the case, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the following reference, inter alia, had been made for consideration of a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC .

            “ (i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but, some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction / development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, or  the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.”.

            A three Member Bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC in their order dated 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 he propose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. “

            A plain reading of the order of the larger Bench of Hon’ble NCDRC indicates that the total value of goods or services provided, is to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora and not the partial amount deposited by an allotee.  In the instant case, the total price of the flat was Rs.37,04,225/-  as it evident from the registered deed of conveyance dated 30.04.2013 executed by  OP-1 in favour of complainant and his wife Smt. Sonali Basak. Considering the total value of the subject flat the matter did not lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum enjoys a pecuniary jurisdiction not exceeding Rs.20,00,000/- and in the instant case the value of the flat is Rs.37,04,225/-and the compensation claimed comes to Rs.47,04,225/- which certainly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The decision cited by the Ld. Advocate for the OP-1 is fully corroborated the defense taken by them.

            In view of forgoing discussion, we are of the view that the value of the flat is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, this Forum have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

            In the result, the application merit succeeds. Hence,

ORDERED

            That the Miscellaneous Application is allowed on contest but without any  cost. Thus, MA being No. 142 of 2019 is disposed of.

            Consequently, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable for want of its pecuniary jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file his consumer complaint before the SCDRC, West Bengal in order to seek redressal of his grievance, if any.