BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complaint has been filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986  seeking relief and for direction to the OPs to refund entire amount of Rs.6,60,000/- along with 18% p.a. from the date of making payment till realization and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, towards  shock, mental agony and physical sufferings and such other reliefs.  

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

 The complainant came in contact with the OPs to purchase of 3BHK apartment measuring 1400 Sq.ft in the proposed project called “GRUHA KALYAN LAVENDER”. The OPs offered to sell the same to the complainant on a total sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- and the complainant paid sum of Rs.6,60,000/- on different dates to the OP as per MOU dt.27.05.2016. There after with fond hope that OP has started the project and complete the same with in a stipulated  period, but the OPs did not start the project, though the complainant started enquiring about delay in starting the project, OPs want to postpone the same by saying one or another reason and did not start the project and finally the complainant requested the OP to cancel  the booking and refund the advance amount received by the OPs and that when the  complainant made efforts  to get back the money from the OPs finally went in vein. The complainant also came to know that several investors  in the said project have lodged police complaint in Madivala Police Station and criminal case filed against the OPs for the offence punishable  under section 420, 120(B) IPC against the OPs and after that the complainant got issued legal notice dt.22.11.2017 calling upon the OPs to refund the amount within 07 days, but inspite of  that OPs did not refund the amount due to the complainant. As aggrieved by the said act of the OPs, the complainant filed this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, the OPs avoided of service of notice and complainant has taken substituted service by paper publication was given and after which OPs were called out, absent and placed exparte.  

4. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. 

5.  Complainant has filed the written arguments.  Perused documents.

6.  The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:-Negative.

      Point no.2 &3:- Do not survive for consideration.

      Point No.4:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8.  Point No.1: On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant, it is admitted that the complainant had booked 3BHK flat measuring 1400sq.ft in the OPs project called GRUHA KALYAN LAVENDER. The OPs have offered to sell the said flat for total consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- and the complainant has paid an advance amount of Rs.6,60,000/- on different dates. To show the same the complainant has produced MOU, in which both the complainant and OPs have entered into MOU and both have signed to the said MOU. In which it depicts that the complainant with an intention to get the flat had entered into MOU with the OPs and the complainant also made payment to the OPs by way of RTGS dt.03.12.2015 and 09.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,60,000/- as per Ex.P1. After which the complainant had followed up with the OPs, but the reasons best known to the OPs, the OPs  have not launched the said project and finally the complainant being fed up with the act of the OPs has filed present  complaint before this Commission seeking relief of the said amount.

9. The complaint has been filed   under section 11 of C.P.Act, 1986 and deals with  wherein which it is stated that the District Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Wherein the value of the goods or the services and the compensation  claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. In the instance case, the value of the flat i.e. goods is Rs.22,00,000/- and advance amount of Rs.6,60,000/-, the compensation sought by the complainant is Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards misery and sufferings. So calculating the same it comes to around Rs.29,00,000/-. According to the section 11 of C.P.Act, 1986, the then District Consumer Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein the value of the goods or services and compensation claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- and the same has been upleld in the  decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  in  2022(3) CPR 137(NC) in the matter between Bimlavathi V/s Improvement Trust and  in the decision of  Hon’ble Supreme court of India in 2021(2) CPR 398 in the matter between Neena Anaje v/s Jain Prakash Associates. Further Consumer protection Act, 2019 has no retrospective effect to continue the proceedings before this Commission. But in the instant case both the value of the goods, compensation claimed by the complainant exceed pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum. But the complainant  has sought for the refund of amount that he has made towards the value of the goods and to determine the same the value of goods has to be considered and not the payment made towards such value of the goods. As such the present complaint oust the jurisdiction of the District Commission. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the negative.
10.  Point no.2& 3:- In view of the discussion on point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint. When the complaint is not maintainable due to pecuniary jurisdiction and  other reasons stated on point no.1, the question of deficiency of service and grant of  relief do not survive for consideration. Therefore, we answer the these points accordingly.

11. Point no.4:- For the for going reasons, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. Return the complaint to the complainant with documents for want of pecuniary jurisdiction for presentation before the Hon’ble State Commission.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the complainant.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28th^h  day of September, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :  Nil