BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

    25^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 for the following reliefs:-

(a) direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.9,70,718/- or set off the same towards amount payable by the complainant.

(b) direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards misleading the complainant and for enriching itself at the cost of complainant and towards mental stress and agony suffered by the complainant.

(c) direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as costs of this proceedings and

(d) any other relief, which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant and OP have entered into an agreement dated 11.01.2017 for total sale consideration of Rs.75,51,931/- in respect of Villa.  The complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of booking the Villa. The complainant has furnished allotment letter and house buyers agreement dated 11.01.2017.

3. The complainant further contends that the complainant has paid in all Rs.45,51,123/- which includes VAT, service charges, CGST and SGST raised by the OP.  On 25.05.2018 the OP had sent the table of calculation of Rs.9,70,718/- which has been paid by the complainant.

4. The complainant also contends that as per para 5(b) of Schedule II of CGST Act, 2017, no GST applicable on ready to move in or completed property.  The complainant is not liable to pay VAT, GST as complainant had completed phase No.1 construction prior to introduction of GST. Therefore, OP is liable to Rs.9,70,718/-.  The OP failed to refund this amount.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service, hence, this complaint.

5. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version.  The OP contends that the complaint is filed with malafide intention and complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant has grossly mis-represented the facts and also guilty of suppression of material.

6. The OP admits the allotment dated 11.01.2017, house buyers agreement dated 11.01.2017 and sale deed dated 28.12.2018.  This Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as property situated in Malur of Kolar District. 

7. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  The completion of Villa came to be completed on 30.06.2017, six months after execution of agreement of sale.  In view of clarification issued by Central Board Excise, Customs and Commercial Taxes, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable.  The OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

8. The complainant filed affidavit evidence of her GPA holder Narendranth Jha and relies on few documents.  The OP has filed affidavit evidence of its Authorized Signatory.

9. Heard the arguments of advocate for complainant only.  No document is advanced on behalf of OP.  We perused the written arguments of both sides.

10. The following points arise for our consideration :-

1.  Whether this Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of filing the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service of the OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

9. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

       Point Nos.2 and 3: Do not survive for consideration.

      Point No.4: As per final orders

REASONS

10. Point No.1:  The point of jurisdiction in every litigation goes to root of the case.  The Court/Authority/Commission has to ascertain whether it has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
11. In order to appreciate the case set up by the complainant and version of the OP, it is relevant to refer Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986.  The Section 11 (1) read thus:-

11(1): Jurisdiction of the District Forum: (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 five lakhs).

12. According to the above provision, the District Forum provision under C.P.Act 1986 had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of goods or service and the compensation if any claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-.
13. The complainant claims a reliefs to direct the Op to pay Rs.9,70,718/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.  It means the claim is Rs.10,70,718/-, according to the allegation made in para 9 of the complaint.  The complainant and OP have entered into house buyers agreement dated 11.01.2017 in respect of the Villa for total sale consideration of Rs.75,51,931/-.  It means the cost of the Villa is Rs.75,51,921/-.  The complainant no where refers what is the value for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the then District Forum on the date of filing the complaint on 30.10.2018.
14. The allegations made in para 9 of the complaint with regard to the value of the service Rs.75,51,931/- and claim of Rs.10,70,718/- requires to be taken into consideration to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction.  If these two values are taken into consideration, the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs.86,22,049/-.
15. The complainant was supposed to show this value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Therefore, the complaint filed before the then District Forum on 30.10.2018 by suppressing the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  When these two values are taken into consideration, the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction on 30.10.2018 was more than Rs.20,00,000/-.  It is settled preposition of law that when the law mandates what is the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court/Authority/Forum is bound to follow the mandate of the law.
16. It is often quoted of the bar, the judgement of Single Member of Hon’ble National Commission in Ravi Beniwal reported in 2018 (3) CPR 395.  In Ravi Beniwal, the Hon’ble National Commission has referred only Section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act, 1986.  Section 11 and 21 of C.P.Act, 1986 nowhere referred in the above decision.  Therefore, the decision of Ravi Beniwal is not applicable to the present case on hand.
17. The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Sukhla and others has been referred by two Members Bench of Hon’ble national Commission in Gurumukh Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Others reported in 2018 (2) CPR 111 held that the total value of the goods or service provided, is to be taken into consideration for determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer For a and not the partial amount deposited by the allottee.
18. Even though, the claim of the complainant is Rs.10,70,718/- only.  But, one must not ignore, the value of the goods/service referred by the complainant in para 9 of the complaint.  According to the complainant, the value of the service i.e. value of the Villa was more than Rs.75,00,000/-.  Therefore, in view of the Larger Bench decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission referred above, this Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
19. It is true that under C.P.Act 2019 w.e.f. 20.07.2020, the jurisdiction of District Commission has been enhanced to Rs.1 crore.  We are of the considered opinion that C.P.Act, 2019 has no retrospective effect.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be continued before this Commission.  This reasoning of us is supported by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (2) CPR 398 in the matter of Neena Aneja Vs. Jain Prakash Associates Ltd., dated 16^th March, 2021.  It  is relevant to refer to para 71 of the judgement which read thus:-

71. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.  While allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned judgement and order of the NCDRC dated 30 July 2020 and the review order dated 5 October 2020, directing a previously instituted consumer case under the Act of 1986 to be filled before the appropriate forum in terms of the pecuniary limits set under the Act of 2019, shall stand set aside;

(ii) As a consequence of (i) above, the national Commission shall continue hearing the consumer case instituted by the appellants;

(iii) All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 as explained above and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019 and

(iv) The respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant quantified at Rupees two lakhs which shall be payable within four weeks.

20. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and when C.P.Act, 2019 has no retrospective effect, the complaint cannot be continued before this Commission.  The complaint on the date of filing the complaint on 30.10.2018 the then District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, we answer this point against the complainant.
21. Point Nos.2 and 3:-   It is settled preposition of law that when the Forum/Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the merits of the case cannot be decided by such Forum/Commission.  Therefore, these two points do not survive for consideration.
22. Point No.4:-  In view of the discussion on point No.1, the complaint requires to be returned to the complainant for presentation before Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  The complaint requires to be returned to the complainant.  We proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. On 30.10.2018, District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 
2. Complaint cannot be continued before this Commission.  Return the complaint with all the documents to the complainant for presentation before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.   

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25^th day of January, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows