1.      Heard Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate along with Mayank Parashar, in person.

2.      M/s. Ansal Housing Ltd. (opposite party-1 and 2) has filed above revision from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh dated 16.08.2021, passed in First Appeal No.355 of 2020 (arising out of order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi, dated 10.01.2020, passed in CC/104/2017), whereby the complaint was allowed with cost of Rs.10000/- and the petitioner was directed to handover possession of the flat in dispute, complete in all respect to the complainant/respondent-1 within 30 days; Failing which, the petitioner was directed to pay delayed compensation of Rs.10000/- per month and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed with cost of Rs.5/- lacs.

3.      Mayank Parashar (respondent-1) filed CC/104/2017, for directing Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. (the petitioner) (i) to handover possession of the flat in dispute, complete in all respect, within a week. (ii) to refund the excess money taken from the complainant with interest @21% per annum. (iii) to pay compensation of Rs.10/- lacs for mental agony and harassment. (iv) to pay Rs.50000/- as cost of the litigation. (v) to set aside the illegal demand of Rs.50474/-. (vi) to set aside demand of Rs.42073/-, shown in the head of interest. (vii) to direct the opposite parties to provide all the amenities as per provisions of U.P. Apartments Ownership Act, 2010 and the Rules framed in it; and (viii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper be awarded to the complainant.    

4.  The complainant stated that he had booked a flat in the project “Ansal Palm Court” Jhansi, launched by the opposite parties and was allotted Unit No. C-FF-81, Type G+25, super area 1410.25 sq.ft @ Rs.2250/- per sq.ft. total Basic Price Rs.3172500/- + Rs.183300 as PLC. On which, a discount of Rs.50000/- was given and total sale price was Rs.3305800/- on 13.08.2014. The complainant opted for “Construction Linked Payment Plan”, under which, the complainant had to deposit 25% of Basic Price within 60 days of allotment. Possession of the Unit, complete in all respect had to be handed over within one to two years. The opposite parties issued a demand letter dated 27.09.2014, for Rs.2233264.91, asking to deposit the said amount till 17.10.2014. The complainant through letter dated 11.10.2014, requested the opposite parties to give at least 15 days time to deposit the instalment. Said demand was also illegal as it was 67% of basic price. On obtaining statement of account maintained by the opposite parties, it was noticed that they had illegally charged Rs.23788/- in the head of interest. The complainant wrote a letters dated 03.11.2014 and 10.11.2014, for deducting the amount of interest from the demand letter but the opposite parties did not give any reply. The complainant took loan of Rs.11/- lacs on 14.11.2014, from Punjab National Bank and paid the instalment. In spite of the request dated 11.10.2014, to give at least 15 days time to deposit the instalment, the opposite parties used to send demand notice through courier without mentioning any date in it with malafide intension to charge interest @21% per annum. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.3295010.37 till February, 2017. Without giving possession, they have charged in the head of Club Uses. The opposite party was using sub-standard material in the construction and not providing car parking space. Under the U.P. Apartments Ownership Act, 2010 and the Rules framed in it, Jhansi Development Authority was required to monitor the construction. In spite of notice given to Jhansi Development Authority, District Magistrate, Jhansi and Secretary, Urban Development, Government of U.P., they are not taking any action against opposite party-1, for unfair trade practice. If any unit holder raised any protest, then opposite party-1 used to charge penal interest from him illegally. The complaint was filed, complaining deficiency in service.

5.      The petitioner filed its written reply and contested the complaint. The material facts as stated in the complaint have been disputed. It has been stated that the complainant had opted for “Construction Linked Payment Plan”, under which, he had to deposit 25% of Basic Price within 60 days of allotment and remaining 9 instalments at different level of the construction and last instalment at the time of possession. As per clause-21 of the Allotment letter, the developer has been given authority to condone the delay by charging interest @21% per annum on delayed payment of instalment. Under Clause-7 of the allotment letter, Club Membership was mandatory. District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the complainant as admittedly cost of the flat was more than Rs.20/- lacs. The dispute be referred to Arbitrator, under clause-59 of the allotment letter.         

6.      The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence of Mayank Parashar and documentary evidence. The petitioner filed Affidavit of Evidence of Rakesh Jain. District Forum, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 10.01.2020 held that as per agreement, the construction had to be completed within 23 months. Although about 99% of basic sale price has been realised till February, 2017 but the possession has not been handed over as such there was deficiency in service. On these findings the complaint was allowed and order as stated above has been passed. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.355 of 2020) from the aforesaid order. State Commission, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 10.08.2021, affirmed the findings of District Forum and dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.5/- lacs. Hence this revision has been filed.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The petitioner took plea that District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the complainant as admittedly the cost of the flat was more than Rs.20/- lacs, in paragraph-3 of Written Statement and Ground No.-F of memorandum of appeal. District Forum and State Commission have very conveniently ignored this ground. The jurisdiction has been conferred by the relevant statute and the parties cannot confer jurisdiction. 

8.      Section-11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as it was at the time of filing the complaint) provides that District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, where the value of the goods or service and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lacs.

9.      The complainant has stated that agreed sale price of the flat in dispute was Rs.3305800/-, of which, possession was sought as first relief in the complainant. Apart from the value of the goods, compensation of more than Rs.10.5/- was claimed. The complaint was not falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum. Its trial and order passed in it by District Forum Jhansi is without jurisdiction and null and void. The appeal ought to have been allowed but it has been illegally dismissed. However, at present pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum has been enhanced to Rs.50/- lacs. Subsequent enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction will not legalise the order which is null and void for want of jurisdiction.

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is allowed. The order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhansi, dated 10.01.2020, passed in CC/104/2017 and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh dated 16.08.2021, passed in First Appeal No.355 of 2020 are set aside. The matter is send back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhansi, who shall readmit the complaint and after giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the opposite party in accordance with law try the complaint afresh.