DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO- 395/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Disposal:
25.09.2018 09.10.2018
Complainant :- 1. Mridul Kanti Dhar
Son of Late Niranjan Dhar,
resident of Rajendra Pally,
Hatiara Road, P.S- New Town,
Kolkata- 700157, District- North 24 Parganas
=Vs=
Opposite Parties :- 1. The M/S OPAL PROJECT Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under
Indian Companies Act, 1986,
having its registered office in Hela Batala,
P.O- Hatiara, P.S- New Town, Kolkata- 700157
2. Sri Laxman Chandra Poddar,
One of the Director of
The M/S Opal Project Pvt. Ltd,
Resident of Rajendra Pally,
Post Office- Hatiara, Hela Battala,
Hatiara Road, Police Station- New Town,
Kolkata- 700157, District- North 24 Parganas
3. Smt. Papia Poddar,
The other Director of
The M/s Opal Project Pvt. Ltd,
Resident of Rajendra Pally,
Post Office- Hatiara, Hela Battala,
Hatiara Road, Police Station- New Town,
Kolkata- 700157, District- North 24 Parganas
4. Sri Alok Kumar Ghosh
Son of Late Birendra Krishna Ghosh,
Resident of Hatiara, P.O- Hatiara,
P.S- New Town, Kolkata- 700157,
District- North 24 Parganas
Cont…………………2
:2:
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder ……………………………………Member.
Final Order
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP did not remove the defects and deficiencies as per the sanctioned building plan as well as did not provide the completion certificate from the concerned Municipality till filing of this complaint.
At the time of hearing on the point of admissibility of the complaint it is seen by us that the cost of the questioned flat is for Rs.7,42,500/-. In the prayer portion the Complainant has sought for compensation for Rs.16,00,000/- towards compensation due to harassment, mental agony and mental stress. Therefore if we add the compensation amount with the cost of the flat, then it is crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.
In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble larger Bench of the NCDRC passed in the case of AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 Others Vs. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE Private Limited, dated 07 Oct 2016, wherein it is mentioned that the order dated 11.08.2016, passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 2016, First Appeal No. 504 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 505 of 2016, the following issues were referred, by a single Member Bench of this Commission to the larger Bench:
(i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.
(ii) ……………………………………
(iii)…………………………………… etc.
Cont…………………3
:3:
The Hon’ble Commission has been held that ‘It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisaged determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.
Having regard to the abovementioned judgment we are of the view that as the total cost of the flat in question and the compensation, as claimed has crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. But the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum/Court/Commission, if not barred otherwise, in view of the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428).
Hence, the complaint being no-395/2018 is dismissed without any cost being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.
Cont…………………4
:4:
Be it mentioned that the Complainant is at liberty to make an application before the office of this ld. Forum praying for return of the copy of the complaint and related documents, if any, either in original or photocopies, whatever it may be, as filed. After filing such application the Office is directed to take necessary step so that the Complainant can get return of the same without any hazards and of course in accordance with law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
