Date of Filing – 22.12.2014

Date of Hearing – 10.03.2017

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Party to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 583/2013.  By the impugned Judgement, the Ld. District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint initiated by the Respondent Mr. Asaduzzaman under Section 12 of the Act with directions upon the Appellant i.e. West Bengal Minorities Development Finance Corporation to deliver the possession of HIG Flat on payment of balance consideration amount and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that he applied for a residential flat on 12.04.2001 and deposited Rs.20,000/- as an application money to the credit of the opposite party.  On 01.12.2001 he received a letter informing that he got a flat through the process of lottery and was instructed to pay the second instalment of Rs.25,000/- for MIG Flat.  Accordingly on 02.01.2002, he paid Rs.25,000/-, on 30.07.2002 paid a further sum of Rs.25,000/-.  In the year 2003, the complainant was instructed to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as the final payment and complainant paid the same on 30.04.2003.   Subsequently, on 05.04.2011 complainant was intimated by the OP that he is allotted for the flat bearing Apartment No.B-11/8 of 2BHK at ‘ARENA’ at Action Area-1, P.O. & P.S.- New Town, Kolkata.  The complainant came to know that a number of HIG Flat allottees had cancelled the registration of their flats.  Therefore, the complainant expressed his interest to buy a flat of bigger size and accordingly, the OP by their letters dated 29.08.2013 informed the complainant that the consideration money for the flat being No.11 measuring 930.9 sq. ft. is valued at Rs.21,17,798/- @ 2,262/- per sq. ft. in place of Rs.14,89,440/- @ Rs.1,600/- per sq. ft.  Therefore, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) to direct the OP to execute and register and transfer the flat in question at the scheduled rate; (b) to direct the OP to convert the allotment from MIG Category to HIG Category; (c) Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (d) Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost etc.   

          The Appellant being OP by filing a written version has stated that as per lottery the complainant got a flat of MIG category having 2BHK Apartments.  Subsequently, when the complainant has made a prayer to convert the same to HIG category, they informed the OP that the cost of the said flat having super built up area 930.9 sq. ft. @ Rs.2,262/- per sq. ft. would be Rs.21,17,798/-. 

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OP as indicated above, which prompted the OP to prefer this appeal.

          Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant on the threshold of his argument has submitted that the Ld. District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the value of the subject flat was Rs.21,17,798/-.  If the amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed by the Respondent is added thereon, the valuation of the property comes to Rs.26,17,798/- and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act, the Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods and compensation exceeds Rs.20 lakhs. 

          For appreciation of the matter in question, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of the Section 11(1) of the Act which runs as follows –

“ (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”.   

          In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. –vs. – Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission while discussing on the point has observed thus-

“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing deficiencies in the goods purchased or the servicers to be rendered to the consumer.  Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction.  If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ....”.

          Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that it is the value of goods or services and compensation claimed which determines pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  A District Forum enjoys a pecuniary jurisdiction not exceeding Rs.20 lakhs.  In the instant case, admittedly, the value of the subject flat was Rs.21,17,798/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- has been claimed.  Therefore, the value of the flat along with the compensation claimed should be the determining factor in assessing the pecuniary jurisdiction as per provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act.

          The jurisdiction means the authority of a Court/Forum to administer justice subject to the limitations imposed by law, which are three-fold, viz – (a) as to subject matter; (b) as to territorial jurisdiction and (c) as to pecuniary jurisdiction.  If any Court or Forum passes any order without any competence, the said order would be a nullity. 

          The Complainant was under obligation to state the valuation of the property in the petition of complaint for appreciation of the Ld. Forum whether it has got jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (Supra).  Admittedly, the value of the claimed flat is Rs.21,17,798/- and adding the amount of compensation, the valuation of the complaint comes to Rs.26,17,798/- which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.

          In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest but without any order as to costs.

          The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby set aside.

          Consequently, the CC/583/2013 stands dismissed. 

          However, this order of dismissal shall not debar the respondent/complainant to approach the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain the same in accordance with law.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.