Haryana

Ambala

CC/355/2017

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. Goel

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.: 355 of 2017.

Date of Institution   : 24.10.2017.

Date of Decision     : 10.11.2017

 

Suresh Kumar son of Sh.Nar Singh Dass resident of House No.4/18, Magistrate Colony, Jind Road, Kaithal District Kaithal (Haryana).

                                                                                                            ……Complainant

                                                Versus

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer.

 

                                                                                             ……Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh.M.S.Goel, counsel for complainant.

                         

ORDER

 

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint averring therein that he was allotted a plot No.326/P Sector 27, Ambala City vide allotment letter No.Z0004/ E0015/ UE025/ GALOT/ 00000000150 dated 25.10.2015 and the complainant in compliance of Clause-6 of the allotment letter  had deposited Rs.3,44,383/- vide drafts No.166410 dated 23.11.2015. On 29.12.2015 the complainant received a massage that Your application No.Z0004/ E0015/ UE025/ 2015T/ CONDO/ 000019 against plot No.326/ P UEO25 over due at level of Deputy Superintendent Since 12.16.2015 12.00 AM and report the matter to Estate Officer. The complainant without any delay attended the office of OP where it was told to him that an amount of Rs.17,300/- on 02.12.2015 is due as allotment surcharge  which is to be paid within 10 days but on 30.12.2015 the computer system of OP had shown the surcharge as Rs.25829/-. The complainant had deposited the above said amount under protest. No delay has been caused due to the fault of the complainant and it was due to late dispatch of letter by the OP and there was no occasion for OP for sending the allotment letter to the bank as the plot was self financed and no loan had been taken by the complainant. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amount to deficiency in service on its part.

2.                     We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant besides going through the written arguments.

3.                     Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the present complaint the complainant has claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs.25,829/-, therefore, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

4.                     After going through the allotment letter dated 25.10.2015, it is clear that the tentative price of the plot in question is shown Rs.21,65,130/-, therefore, before going further it is desirable to re-produce Section -11 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is as under:-

“11 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 twenty lakhs”.

Section-11 is worded in clear terms and leaves no one in doubt that the District Forum shall not entertain any complaint which exceeds its pecuniary limits beyond Rs.20.00 lacs. On this point we may place reliance of judgment dated 07.03.2017 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Manmohan Singh Vs. Unitech etc. wherein it has been held that if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services in that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.

4.                     In view of the legal proposition enunciated above, we refrain ourselves from giving any opinion whether complainant fall within the purview of consumer or whether any deficiency on the part of Ops but we decide the point of pecuniary jurisdiction first in light of the case laws referred above. Accordingly, we are of the confirmed opinion that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and thus the same is hereby dismissed in limnie with no order as to costs with a liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate Court/Forum/Commission on the same cause of action.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED: 10.11.2017                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                              PRESIDENT               

 

 

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                               MEMBER                                          

 

                                                                                           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)                                                                                                               MEMBER