Haryana

StateCommission

A/1284/2016

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KIRAN BALA - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

03 May 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1284 of 2016

Date of Institution:  28.12.2016

Date of Decision:   03.05.2018

 

M/s Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, through its authorized representative namely Atul Arya.

 

…..Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Smt. Kiranbala wife of Rakesh Chander, resident of Village Chimni, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

 

  …..Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Nihal Singh, Advocate for appellant.

                   Shri Dherender Shukla proxy counsel for Shri Pradeep Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent.

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by complainant that she purchased property worth Rs.58,98,600/- from opposite party (in short ‘OP’) and paid Rs.62,00,000/- upto July, 2013, but, the possession was not delivered. So OP be directed to pay compensation alongwith interest as prayed for.

2.      In reply, it was alleged by OP that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider in between them after execution of conveyance deed dated 20.08.2014 in favour of complainant. Averments raised by complainant were altogether wrong and it was not liable to pay any compensation. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short ‘District Forum’) was not having jurisdiction to try the complaint. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 27.10.2016 and directed as under:

“….We, therefore, held that the respondent is liable/responsible to pay the penalty @ Rs.5/- per square feet per month to the complainant for the super area/property area (as shown in statement Ex.P-5 for the period of delay which comes to Rs.2064 x 5 x 11=Rs.1,13,520/- and accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,13,520/- as penalty for the period of delay alongwith an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.08.2015 till realization of final payment to the complainant.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent vehemently argued that the compensation claimed was much less then Rs.20 lacs, so, District Forum was having jurisdiction to try this complaint.

7.      This argument is of no avail. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016 titled Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 that relief claimed as well as value of the property is to be taken into consideration. This point of pecuniary jurisdiction has been discussed in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) in reference dated 11.08.2016, which is as under:

 

“Reference dated 11.08.2016

          Issue No.(i)

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.

          Issue No.(iii)

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer forum.”

This opinion is reiterated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in first appeal No.1364 of 2017 titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension & Ors. Vs. Lalitha Saini decided on 21.08.2017 (NC) that value of flat alongwith interest etc. is to be taken into consideration and not only the amount sought to be refunded.

8.      This view was also followed by Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled “Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited” decided on 07.10.2016. For ready reference relevant Para No.3 of this judgment is also reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. The act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer.”

 

9.      Hon’ble National Commission has opined accordingly in other case laws mentioned above. So it cannot be alleged by learned counsel for complainant that value of goods or services cannot be taken into consideration. When learned District Forum was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute, it was not supposed to go into merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Kamlesh Babu and others Versus Lajpat Rai Sharma and others, 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 872; Sushil Kumar Mehta Versus Gobind Ram Bohra, 1990 (1) RCR(Rent) 423; Gannmani Ansuya and Ors. Versus Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Ors., 2007(3) RCR(Civil) 381 and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Versus Director, Health Services, Haryana and others; (2013) 10 SCC 136 and Hon’ble National Consumer Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.

10.    As a sequel to above discussions, impugned order dated 27.10.2016 is set aside, appeal accepted and complaint is dismissed.   

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 03.05.2018 D.R.

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench