| Final Order / Judgement | Reportable Before, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna Complaint Case No. 15 of 2022 Neelam Yadav aged about 32 years (Female), W/o- Sri Amar Raj, Resident of: Village- Chukti, PO- Mansi, District- Khagaria at Present Resident of: House no. 51, MLA Colony (Kautilya Nagar), BMP- 14, PO- B.V. College, District- Patna ............... Complainant Versus - M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director namely Mr. Tushar Kumar, Corporate & Registered Office at: GMT House, G-5, Pushkar Enclave, Outer Ring Road, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, PIN- 110063
- Mr. Nitin Kapoor, Director, M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd, D-21, Office No. 217, 2nd Floor, Corporate Park, DMRC Building, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi, PIN- 110077
- Mr. Shiv Shankar Jha, Marketing Manager, M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd, Swami Vivekanand Path, Manik Sarkar Chouraha, Adjacent Deep Prabha Cinema Hall, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur, Bihar, PIN- 812001
........... Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant- Adv. Hitendra Singh Counsel for the Opposite Party- Before: Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) Dated: 20.09.2022 Order Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) - Heard, on the point of admission.
- Learned counsel submitted that complainant is a lady entrepreneur and for the purpose of her livelihood she entered into allotment agreement with the opposite party for a shop on the first floor of the opposite party’s project “ First Mall and Hotel, Bhagalpur” consideration money was Rs. 26,77,200/- out of which complainant made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and subsequently complainant made payment of altogether Rs. 14,00,000/- inclusively of the aforesaid till May, 2018. Project till date has not been completed and it appears that opposite parties are not intending to complete the project, even after twelve years. Complainant has sought relief for Rs. 1,07,00,000/- (One Crore seven lakh) including compensation and consequential loss. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the principle decided by this Commission in the case CC/11/2022, Ragini Kumari Vs. Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. passed on 15.07.2022, this case is maintainable before this Commission so far as jurisdiction is concerned.
- Perused the record, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been enacted by our Parliament and came into effect from the date of 20th July, 2020. Section 47 (1) (a) of the act deals with the provisions of jurisdiction of the State Commission which reads as under:
“ 47. Jurisdiction of State Commission.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- - to entertain
- Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems it; - Complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;
- Appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and
-
- Later on Central government has again revised the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission by the Consumer Protection (Pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules 2021, whereby jurisdiction of State Commission begins, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds 50 lacs, but does not exceed Rs. two crore.
- Earlier in the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17 provides for the jurisdiction of the State Commission which runs as follows:
- Jurisdiction of the State Commission: (1). Subject to the other provisions of this act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) To entertain:-
- Complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- lakhs but does not exceed rupees One Crore”.
- Our parliament in its wisdom omits the word ‘compensation’ mentioned in section 17 of the old Act, 1986 while formulating the the provisions of jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions in New Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- In the present case in hand the value of the goods is only Rs. 11,00,000/- (eleven lacs). Other reliefs are about compensation for mental agony and other consequential loss, so, these reliefs can not be considered while deciding the jurisdiction of the Commission as per new Act, 2019 compensation etc can not be added.
- So far as the order passed by this Commission in Complaint Case 11 of 2022 on 15.07.2022 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that in this case principle has been decided that when no consideration was paid the value of goods shall be taken to decide the jurisdiction of the Commission. To quote the last portion of that order would be better to appreciate the fact which is as under:
“Since, here in the present case consideration has been returned, so jurisdiction would be decided on the basis of relief claim for sum assured (value of goods) i.e Rs. One crore, which insurance company had promised to make payment in case of death of the insured”. - In the present case in hand value of goods is only eleven lacs (price of shop) which is much lesser than fifty lacs, so, it can not in anyway be entertained at the State Commission.
- If the value of goods /paid consideration is below fifty lacs the case may be brought before the District Commission. In present case value of goods is below fifty lacs, so complainant may, if advised bring the case before the concerned District Commission. Accordingly, the case is disposed of.
Gita Verma (Judicial Member) Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) Md. Fariduzzama
| |
