BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 06/03/2014
Date of Order : 04/06/2015
Present :-
Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 168/2014
Between
1. Dr. Viji B. Nair, | :: | Complainants |
Thottiyil House,NMC Nagar, M.A. College. P.O.,Kothamangalam 686 666. 2. Dr. Sindhu V. Nair, Thottiyil House, NMC Nagar, M.A. College. P.O.,Kothamangalam 686 666. | (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661.) |
And
Manager, M/s. DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd., | :: | Opposite Party |
Opp. to Doordarshan Kendra, Kakkanadu. P.O., Kochi – 682 030. | (By Adv. Dominic Antony, M/s. Menon & Pai Advocates, I.S. Press Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 18.) |
O R D E R
V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
The complainants Dr. Viji. B. Nair and Dr. Sindhu V. Nair entered into the construction agreement with the opposite party M/s. DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd., who are builders engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential apartments. The opposite party had offered one apartment in the proposed construction of flats by name “DLF New Town Heights” at Kakkanadu. The complainants entered into construction agreement with the opposite party on 09-09-2010 and paid an advance amount of Rs. 4,10,240/- on 29-09-2010. After that, the complainants paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 35,44,912/- plus tax along with other charges as per the payment schedule attached to the construction agreement dated 09-09-2010 and the flat is supposed to have been delivered to the complainant on 09-09-2013. But the apartment was not completed on 09-09-2013 and not yet handed over the complainants as agreed by the opposite party. Hence the complainants filed this complaint before this Forum seeking direction against the opposite party to complete the construction of the apartment and to hand over the possession of the apartment to the complainants. The complainants also sought for a direction to the opposite party to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 35,44,912/- paid by the complainants for the delayed period from 09-09-2013 til realisation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party appeared and filed I.A. No. 222/2015 with a prayer to hear the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, the above I.A. was heard on 04-06-2015.
3. This complaint is preferred by the complainants alleging deficiency in service of completion of construction of the apartment. The District Forum has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, wherein the value of goods or services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Hon'ble National Commission in Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madhura & Another reported in 2 (1996) CPJ 103 (NC), categorically laid down that it is the aggregate value of the goods or services and compensation that determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in M/s. Omaxe Ltd. Vs. Yashpal Saggi CFA No. 12/2013), following the decision of the National Commission stated supra held that, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum was required to be determined on the basis of the aggregate value of the flat plus compensation claimed shall not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- to get jurisdiction. The Hon'ble National Commission in Rajendra Mohan Varma Vs. State Bank of India (Revision Petition No. 2252/2010), held that the District Forum cannot take cognizance of cases for which it has no jurisdiction.
4. In the present case, the complainants have purchased a flat from the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 35,44,912/- along with other charges and the prayer made by the complainants is to hand over the possession of the flat and to pay 9% interest p.a. on the amount paid of Rs. 35,44,912/- for the delayed period from 09-09-2013 till realisation. Going by the prayers in the relief portion, it is clear that the complaint through this complainant has requested for an order, which would exceed the pecuniary limit of this Forum. If the complaint is properly valued, the jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs claimed or prayed for can only be granted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Therefore, we find that the complaint as such is not maintainable before this Forum. Therefore, I.A. No. 222/2015 filed by the opposite party is allowed with a finding that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, since the reliefs claimed exceeded Rs. 20,00,000/-.
5. In the result, this complaint stands dismissed without prejudice to file the appropriate complaint before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, which is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, subject to the law of limitation with regard to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of the proceedings.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of June 2015.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President. Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
