Haryana

StateCommission

A/377/2018

SATISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S INVESTORS CLINIC INFRATECH PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.377 of 2018

Date of the Institution:27.03.2018

Date of Decision:11.04.2018

 

Satish Kumar Goyal S/o Sh. B.R. Goyal, R/o House No.402, Parvati Durga Society, GH-5, NDC, Sector-6, Panchkula-134114 (Haryana).

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Managing Director/Chairman, M/s Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Tapasya Building, Noida, Expressway, Sector-126, Noida-201303 (U.P).

2.      M/s Investors Clinic Infratech Pvt. Ltd., 802-805 A, 8^th Floor, IRIS Tech Park, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001.

                                                                   .…. Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Satish Kumar Goyal, appellant in person.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.      As per complainant he applied for allotment of 3BHK flat only with the opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), but, OPs allotted a bigger flat 3BHK + servant. When he objected and asked for refund of booking amount it was told that refund was not possible so he continued making payment to builder M3M. Thereafter, OP No.1 backed out from promise of 4.5% cash back discount on the basic price. Ultimately, OP No.1 issued a credit note in favour of complainant with 2% cash back discount of Rs.2,16,200/-, but, he received Rs.1,08,100/- only.  He demanded his money regularly through various mails and phone calls but OPs did not give any satisfactory reply. O.Ps. be directed to refund Rs.1,08,100/- alongwith interest and compensation etc.

2.      O.ps. failed to appear before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’) despite service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.10.2016.

3.      After hearing learned counsel for complainant, the learned District Forum dismissed the complainant vide order dated 09.10.2017.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Hon’ble National Commission has clearly opined in Consumer case No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 that price of unit is to be taken into consideration.  In Reference Dated 11.08.2016 it is specifically opined that interest claimed is also to be taken for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction which is as under:-

          “Reference dated 11.08.2016

          Issue No.(i)

It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

          Issue No.(ii)

The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer Forum.

 

Hon’ble National Commission has opined in Appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled as Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited decided on 07.10.2016 that general relief claimed is also to be taken into consideration. For ready reference para No.3 of that judgement is reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. The act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer.”

          Hon’ble National Commission has also opined in TDI Infrastructure Limited Vs. Pradeep Mathur 2015  Lawsuit (CO) 1866 that if fora is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try complaint then that fora cannot decide the matter on merits. It is also opined therein that value of unit is also to be taken into consideration for determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

7.        In this case value of unit i.e. flat was more than Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of learned District Forum. When District Forum was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter, it was not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs.Director, Health Services, Haryana and others (2013) 10 SCC 136  and Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development  Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.

8.      As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order passed by learned District Forum cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

April 11th, 2018

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

R.K.