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

DATED 21^st DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the OPs for the following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the OP to refund Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 14% p.a.

(b) In addition to above relief to grant compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony, compensation towards deficiency in service etc.,

(c) Grant cost of the complaint.

(d) Such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant having entered into memorandum of understanding dated 18.07.2016 agreed to purchase B schedule property from the OPs for total consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- by paying Rs.4,00,000/-.  The complainant has also agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.16,00,000/- as per the terms of the sale agreement.  It is further case of the complainant that on 21.01.2017 the OPs having accepted the cancellation issued commitment letter dated 22.02.2017 expressing the apology, but they failed to refund the earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The Non-refund of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- amounts to deficiency of service.  The act of the OPs have caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

3. The notice to OPs got published in two newspapers namely Udayavani and Hindu.  Despite publication of notice, OPs failed to appear before this Commission.  OPs have been placed exparte.

4. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and relies on 6 documents. 

5. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records. 

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the then District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint on the date of filing the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

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

       Point No.1:-  In the negative.

      Point Nos.2 and 3:- Do not survive for our   

      consideration

      Point No.4:-per final orders

REASONS

8. Point No.1:As per the allegations made in the complaint, memorandum of understanding between complainant and OP No.1 that the complainant agreed to purchase B schedule property for Rs.20,00,000/- and paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance.  The complainant also agreed to repay the balance amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. It means the value of the property on the date of memorandum of understanding was Rs.20,00,000/-.  The OPs issued commitment letter dated 22.02.2017 agreed to refund earnest money either by DD or RTGS.  But, amount not refunded.  The complainant claims refund of Rs.4,00,000/- earnest money with interest at 14% p.a. and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.  But, complainant has not ascertain from which date he wants interest at 14% p.a. on Rs.4,00,000/-.  Under such circumstances, the claim for the purpose of this complaint is taken into consideration as Rs.5,50,000/-.  The value of the agreed property is Rs.20,00,000/-.
9. The question arises on the date of filing complaint on 05.09.2018 under the provisions of C.P.Act, 1986, whether this Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
10. It is relevant to refer Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 201986 which read thus:-

11(1): Jurisdiction of the District Forum: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs).  

11. According to the above provision for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the goods or services and claim shall be taken into consideration and District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.20,00,000/-. If the value of property as alleged in the complaint, mentioned in the memorandum of understanding, the value of property was Rs.20,00,000/- and claim Rs.5,50,000/- if added to this Rs.20,00,000/-, the total value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs.25,50,000/- on the date of filing the complaint.  Thereby, this Forum on 06.09.2018 had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
12. It is settled proposition of law that when the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the complaint requires to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the jurisdictional commission.
13. This reasoning of us is supported by the decisions of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission reported in the following decisions:-

1. 2022(1) CPR 363 (NC) in the matter between Apoorv Bansal Vs. M/s Vatika Ltd.,  where in it is held that purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction – purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. 2018 (2) CPR 111 in the matter between Gurmukh Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another. The Honb’le National Commission referring the earlier judgement of Larger Bench in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,, wherein it was held in para 6 which read thus:-

Para 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.

3. III (2018) CPJ 370 (NC) in the matter between Renu Singh Vs. Experion Development Pvt. Ltd., where in it is held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 29(1)(g), 21(a)(ii) – Pecuniary jurisdiction – booking of residential unit – builder-buyer agreement – Terms and conditions not agreed upon, Refund of deposited amount sought, alleged deficiency in service – State Commission dismissed complaint – Hence, appeal value of unit itself is Rs.1,28,84,474/- - Pecuniary jurisdiction in complaint is not before the State Commission but it is before the National Commission – No perversity in well reasoned order passed by State Commission.

14. It is relevant to note that the C.P.Act, has come into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020.  The question arises, whether such a complaint enhancing pecuniary of District Commission is enhanced to Rs.1 crore i.e. consideration paid for the goods or service.  The question arises, whether this complaint can be continued under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
15. We are of the considered opinion that the complaint filed under the provision of C.P.Act, 1986 cannot be continued under the new Act taking into payment of consideration the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction mentioned in C.P.Act 2019.    
16. This reasoning of us is supported by the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission:-

1. 2021 (2) CPR 398 in the matter of Neena Aneja Vs. Jain Prakash Associates Ltd., dated 16^th March, 2021.  It  is relevant to refer to para 71 of the judgement which read thus:-

71. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.  While allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned judgement and order of the NCDRC dated 30 July 2020 and the review order dated 5 October 2020, directing a previously instituted consumer case under the Act of 1986 to be filled before the appropriate forum in terms of the pecuniary limits set under the Act of 2019, shall stand set aside;

(ii) As a consequence of (i) above, the national Commission shall continue hearing the consumer case instituted by the appellants;

(iii) All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 as explained above and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019 and

iv) The respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant quantified at Rupees two lakhs which shall be payable within four weeks.

2. Case No.833/2020 in the matter between M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and three others dated 28.08.2020 at para 10 read thus:-

Para 10:- From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/taken.  Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations.

17. In view of the above discussion, on the date of filing the complaint, neither this District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint nor this District Commission can continue the proceedings under C.P.Act, 2019.
18. Point Nos.2 and 3:- It is settled preposition of law that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of filing the complaint, merits of the case cannot be decided.  Therefore, these two points do not survive for consideration.       
19. Point No.4:- In view of the discussion made in the presiding paragraph on point No.1, the complaint was not maintainable before this Forum for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and same complaint cannot be continued under the new C.P.Act, 2019.  Therefore, the complaint requires to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Commision, Bengaluru.   Hence, we proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. On 05.08.2018, the complaint was not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction  and complaint cannot be continued under new C.P.Act, 2019.
2. Return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Commission, Bengaluru with documents.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both parties as per law.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^st March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-