F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant with the prayer directing the O.Ps./ Partner of TRINATH CONSTRUCTION to complete the construction work and also to pay a compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- and also Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant BIRENDRA SOVA APARTMENT HOUSING SOCIETY at Ukilpara, Raiganj filed this complaint stating the fact that O.P. construction firm developed the apartment named above and after completion O.Ps. executed registered sell deeds in favour of members of the housing society. Complainants is also a purchaser of flat and secretary of the housing society, alleges that there are some incomplete construction and disputes arises over the constructions of whole building and constructed beyond approved municipal plan, that the total apartment, staircase etc. are constructed as unprotected situation, unscientific constructional work. The O.Ps. provided 16.56 kottas of land instead of 17.5 kottas. O.Ps. even neglected to take any initiative to resolve all these disputes of constructional defects in spite of continuous request of the residents of the apartments. Therefore complainant alleges that O.Ps. come within the prevue of unfair trade practice and as well as deficiency in service. On 07.03.2014 legal notice was sent to O.Ps to rectify the defects of constructional works but O.Ps did not comply. Therefore the petitioner came before this forum praying for direction upon O.Ps.to complete the constructional work removing all the defects and also prays for compensation as stated above.

The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and O.Ps. also denied all the allegations in defects in constructions etc.. That the legal heirs of Late Birendra Kumar Dutta on 29.03.09 entered into an agreement with M/s Trinath Construction to develop the property and constructed 13 nos. of completely ready furnished flats in 2011. Then the owners sold out most of the flats getting consideration money.

The O.P Nos. 1 and 2 further stated that from the reply of the complainant upon the petition of O.Ps. dated 15.05.2014 it is evident that there are 37 flat owners in the Birendra Sova Apartment Housing Society and petitioner being secretary have filed this case for himself and for and on behalf of 36 flat owners. It is settled law that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint. That the aggregate value of all those flats is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the complainant.

To establish his case the complainant filed memo of evidence, answer of questionnaires, oral evidence, some photocopies of documents etc.

O.P. No. 1 and 2 to prove the defence case has submitted W.V., questionnaires and also referred some decisions of Honourable State Commission and National Commission.

Complainant deposed as P. W. 1 that total 37 flats were purchased by the members of the society and occupied the same. In cross examination he admitted that he purchased his flat at Rs.9,50,000/-and is in occupation. P.W.2 is also a co-owner of the land in which Birendra Sova Apartment has been constructed deposed about the agreement dt. 30.03.2009 between M/s Trinath Construction and all the co-owners who also received 13 flats following the contracts. The Xerox copy of the agreement was also filed. They also sold away 11 flats and occupying 2 flats. P.W.3 deposed also as a co-owner.

In reply to the petition of questionnaires made in the W.V. dated 15.05.2014 the petitioner submitted by a petition dated 04.07.2014 that the Birendra Sova Apartment Housing Society is not a registered society under W.B. Society Registration Act. A list of 37 members including office-bearers of the society is presented in the said petition dated 04.07.2014.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We carefully perused the complaint, W.V., photocopies of documents and considered the argument advanced by the contesting parties.

On perusal of complaint it appears that admittedly there are 37 flat owners of the housing society who have authorized the petitioner to file this complainant petition and complainant as secretary of Birendra Sova Apartment Housing Society filed this case and deposed as P.W. 1 on behalf of all the 37 flat owners. That he himself purchased a flat of the apartment at Rs.9,50,000/-.

O.P. cited some references and judgment of Hon’ble State Commission and also of National Commission. From the judgement of Honourable SCDRC, WB in S.C.case no. CC/22/2010 dt. 26.04.2010 Honourable president observed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission u/s 17(1)(a)(i) of C.P. act that total valuation of the property in dispute will not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum. Moreover the jurisdiction of the Forum should be based on Quantum of reliefs put together, that is, agreegate of value of goods and compensation or aggregate of value of services and compensation. Honourable NCDRC also observed that it is settled law that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.

Here in the instant case, admittedly, the total valuation of the 37 flats of Birendra Sova Apartment Housing Society obviously would exceed Rs.20,00,000/-, and this forum will not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In addition thereto there is prayer for compensation and other reliefs which have been made out in the complaint petition. Evidently therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to award any relief and compensation to the complainant. With this observation we find that the case fails for lack of jurisdiction.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

Thus the complaint being No.41/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.