West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/38/2019

SRI SHIBAJI CHOWDHURY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LOKENATH CONSTRUCTION - Opp.Party(s)

DEBDIP DUTTA

05 Jul 2019

ORDER

The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainants with an intent to purchase a residential flat with car parking garage facility in the locality had come in touch with OP No.1, a partnership firm situated at Siliguri and to that effect a deed of agreement to sale was entered in between the parties and it has been stated in the petition of complaint that on 16.02.2016 the said developer OP No.1, partnership firm through its partners registered a deed of sale at the office of the A.D.S.R., Siliguri in favour of the complainants only in respect of the said residential flat at a consideration price of Rs. 25,66,500/- and it is the case of the complainants that they have already paid the amount of Rs. 29,50,000/- to the OP No.1 and its partners for the aforesaid flat with car parking garage and requested the said developer OP No.1 through OP Nos. 2 & 3 to execute and registered the necessary sale deed in respect of the said agreed car parking garage but the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 always neglected and avoided to do so taking various frivolous pleas. The complainants’ side sent advocate’s letter wherein Paragraph No.4 it is alleged that the partners OP Nos. 1, 2 &3 received a total amount of Rs. 29,50,000/- only from and on behalf of the complainants by way of cheques and cash on different occasions out of the total consideration amount for flat and garage/parking space.  After hearing Ld. advocate for the complainants in order to consider the matter of admission of the case we have gone through the documents on record and it appears to us that this Forum being a District Consumer Forum have had no jurisdiction to entertain this case for adjudication here.  Perused section 11(1) of the C.P. Act. 1986 where it is stated that District Forum shall had jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed “does not exceed Rupees Twenty Lakhs”.  In our considered view this case lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and in this context reliance is given by this Forum on the relevant judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on pecuniary jurisdiction in between Ambrish Shukla Vs Ferrous Infrastructure where in has been held that 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 pecuniary jurisdiction and further the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum. Here in this case the sale deed dtd. 16.02.2016 is for consideration amount of Rs. 25,66,500/- and while complainants stated that they have paid in excess to that amount of flat a total amount of Rs. 29,50,000/- the rest of which after Rs.25,66,500/- is meant for car parking garage space and this case is orienting with the deficiency in service as alleged mainly on negligence from the part of the OP

Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in respect of car parking space which is a part of agreement which agreement speaks about payment of Rs. 29,50,000/- and thus this amount certainly exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- and accordingly this case is not admitted.