Date of filing: 20.02.2018 Date of disposal: 23.07.2018
Complainant: Mr. Shilajit Kumar Saha, S/O- Late Sunil Kumar Saha, Residence of Flate No.-1/B, Block-1, SPARKLIN, Link Road, Durgapur, P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Paschim Bardhaman.
Opposite Party: 1. M/s. BGA REALTORS (a registered partnership firm) Represented by its one of the partner Dr. Rajiv Ghose, Principal Office At-P-399, Hemanta Mukhopadhyay Sarani, Sarat Bose Road, Police Station-Lake Town, Kolkata -700029.
2. K.J. REALINFRA (P) Ltd. Represented by Director-Sri Joydeep Majumder, Registered Office at –No-4, Hindustan Park PO-Dover Lane, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700029.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Àbhijit Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Authorized Representative, Abhijit Das
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Ld. Advocate, Souvik Das.
Order No. 14, Dated: 23.07.2018
This order is arising out of the M.A. being No. 07/2018 filed by the O.P. No.2 in the CC No. 219/2017.
O.P. No.2 filed this M.A. Case against complainant challenging the maintainability of this case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The valuation of the Property (flat) is set forth in the petition is Rs. 27,97,100=00 but complainant files this case showing valuation of Rs. 4,00,000=00 for shortage of delivery of carpet area, claiming Rs. 2,00,000=00 as compensation for not providing amenities, harassment and mental pain of Rs. 1,00,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.25,000=00 and the total valuation of the petition is Rs. 7,25,000=00. The flat purchased with car parking places valued at Rs. 27, 97,100=00 and as per principle of law. It exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum which is limited to Rs. 20, 00,000=00 and therefore O.P. prays for dismissal of this case.
Complainant filed objection to this M.A. Application stating that pecuniary jurisdiction of filing a complaint before the Forum and completely depends upon the amount of relief claimed and not upon the value of this subject matter (Flat). The case is filed seeking relief in respect of shortage of carpet area of the flat as provided by the O.P. after collecting consideration money. He prayed relief to that effect of Rs. 4, 00,000=00 for shortage of carpet area and Rs. 2, 00,000=00 for non fulfillment of assurance regarding amenities which O.P. did not provide. He also prayed for compensation for mental pain and agony and also for unfair trade practice of Rs. 1, 00,000=00. He prayed for Rs. 25, 000=00 litigation cost and total relief Rs. 7, 25,000=00 as prayed for. Complainant cited judgment of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. as reported in 2016 1 CPR (NC) 784 that relief claimed only regarding deficiency in service. Value of flats the subject matter cannot be added in the reliefs claimed. Value of compensation claimed in alternate regarding deficiency in service. Therefore, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Heard both sides. In view of the order of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. as referred above. I find that this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complain where the complainant prayed for relief in the form of compensation against O.P. for providing shortage of carpet area in the flat and also for not providing certain amenities and for harassment with mental pain and agony totaling Rs. 7, 25,000=00 which is very much within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, the M.A. case should be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the M.A. being No. 07/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law
Dictated & Corrected by me:
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh) (Tapan Kumar Tripathy))
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
