APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  9^th FEBRUARY 2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 11.10.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 464/2017, “Gurmukh Singh versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Anr.”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 1.06.2017, passed by the District Forum Mohali, in consumer complaint No. 316/2016, filed by the present petitioner, holding that the said Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to take cognisance of the matter in question, was upheld.

2.       The petitioner/complainant Gurmukh Singh submitted his application No. 8450 for allotment of a category ‘A’, Type – I apartment with the opposite party (OP) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and also made an initial deposit of ₹3,70,000/-.  The complainant was successful in the draw of lots taken out by the OP and a letter of intent for allotment of a residential apartment, showing the total price and payment schedule etc. was issued to him.  The complainant deposited a further sum of ₹7,40,000/- to the OP and in this manner, made a total deposit of ₹11,10,000/- with them.  It is stated that as the financial position of the complainant was not good, he made a request in January 2013 for refund of the amount deposited by him.  It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant received a partial refund only of ₹5,96,091/- through cheque dated 30.09.2015 and in this way, he suffered a net loss of ₹4,76,910/-.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of the said amount, alongwith another ₹1 lakh as cost of borrowing the funds in question.  The complainant sought directions to the OPs to pay him a sum of ₹5,76,910/- alongwith compensation of ₹2 lakh and also the litigation cost.  When the case came-up for hearing before the District Forum, it was ordered on 01.06.2017 that the total agreed sale consideration of the property was ₹37lakh and hence, considering the value of the goods or services, the case did not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.  The District Forum ordered return of the complaint to the complainant, relying upon the decision of this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [CC/97/2016 & allied matters decided on 07.10.2016]” and granted liberty to him to  approach the appropriate consumer fora for the redressal of his grievance.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission.  However, the said Commission, also relying upon the order passed by a larger Bench of this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited (supra)”, held that the total value of the goods or services was to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer fora.  The State Commission held that there was no merit in the appeal and the same was ordered to be dismissed.  Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition. 

3.       During hearing, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, as per proper interpretation of the order passed by this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [supra]”.  The matter should, therefore, be decided on merits by this Commission or in the alternative, the matter should be remanded to the District Forum to decide the complaint on merits.

4.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

5.       In the case, “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [supra]”, the following reference, interalia, had been made for consideration of a larger bench of this Commission :-

“(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.”

6.       A three-Member Bench of this Commission in their order on 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 the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

7.         A plain reading of the order made by the larger Bench of this Commission 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 allottee.  The State Commission as well as the District Forum have rightly taken the view that in the instant case, the total price of the flat was ₹37 lakh, as was evident from the letter of intent for allotment issued by the OPs.  Considering the total value of the flat, the matter did not lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.  It is evident, therefore, that the orders passed by the consumer fora below are based on a correct interpretation of the orders passed by the larger Bench of this Commission as well as the provisions of law as contained in section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is held, therefore, that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld.  However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file his consumer complaint before the consumer fora of appropriate jurisdiction in order to seek redressal of his grievance, if any.