Delhi

New Delhi

CC/395/2016

Manoj Kumar Nirola - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

Case No.C.C./395/2016                                                                                                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

MANOJ KUMAR NIROLA

510, Pocket-E,

Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,

Delhi-110091

 

..…..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.

Through its CMD, Mr. Pradeep Jain,

6^th Floor, “ARUNACHAL” 19,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001

 

........... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

 

 

This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP builder, claiming the following reliefs:

 

(a)       The OP be directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 41,38.650/-  including the deposited amount of Rs/ 11.50,000/- and Rs. 29,88,650/- (approximately) towards interest calculated @24% p.a. form 18/2/2005 till 17/6/2016.

(b)       The OP be also directed to pay future interest and pendent elite interest @ 24% p.a. on the aforementioned amount from the date of filing of lthe present complaint till its realization.

(c)        To hold the OP liable for deficiency in service.

(d)       To hold the OP liable for unfair trade practice.

(e)       The OP be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant towards harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and the loss lof finances suffered by the complainant.

(f)        That the OP be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for meeting the legal expenses in pursuing this complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.

(g)       Any further relief or order, which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper ;in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, may also be passed in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice.

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law on the question of admission of the complaint. During the arguments the question of pecuniary jurisdiction cropped up. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that in Ritu Duggal versus Unitech Reliable Projects, Private Ltd Being Consumer Case No. 1521 of 2015 decided by Hon’ble National Commission it was held that interest is not to be counted for the purpose of ascertaining pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer fora. Further, reliance is placed upon Mohit Choudhary versus M/S Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Private Ltd and Others Consumer Complaint No. 643 of 2016 decided by the same Bench of Hon’ble National Commission by following the Ritu Duggal's case (supra).We have carefully considered this contention to ascertain whether the complaint is filed within pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum.

 

In Jagdish Thapliyal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. :2010(2) C.P.R. 123 : 2010(65) R.C.R.(Civil) 280(N.C.D.R.C.) honourable National Commission has made the following observations:

“Bearing in mind the above legal proposition, it is to be seen as to whether the reliefs claimed by the complainant in the case in hand were either absurd, imaginary or grossly arbitrary. In our opinion, the answer is in the negative because at the time of consideration of this aspect, it is the say of the plaintiff/complainant, which should be taken on its lace value rather than going by the say of the defendant/opposite party. It is a different thing that after trial of the suit or complaint, the complainant mayor may not or partially able to establish his claim. Asking a plaintiff or complainant to reduce the valuation of his suit or complaint or delete part of the relief without trial would amount to pre-adjudication of the matter. In the present case,' the complainant has claimed compensation under various heads. His main claim being for the sum of Rs. 18,24,200 as the insured amount which he claims to be entitled in respect of the damage to the machine in question because according to him, the machine was beyond repairs and in any case, the repair charges were more than 75% of the cost of the machine. Therefore, the claim of this amount cannot be said to be imaginary or arbitrary. The next bigger claims were towards interest and loss of earning etc. Prima facie there appears to be nothing wrong in the complainant claiming some reasonable amount of interest on the payable amount of insurance claim because admittedly the claim was not settled by the Insurance Company within a reasonable time, say within three months after lodging the claim. In this regard, it would be useful to note that as per the practice developed over the years, the consumer Fora have been awarding reasonable amount of interest to the complainant on the amount of insurance claim/compensation due to the time gap in lodging the claim and payment of the insurance claim. In our view, the complainant did no wrong in making the claim for the interest for the past period up to the filing of the complaint. It is settled legal position that a plaintiff is entitled to include the past interest on the principal payable amount, which would become a part and parcel of the main claim. Even if for the sake of arguments, we assume that the complainant would be entitled to a reasonable interest , say @ 9% to 12% per annum, on the payable amount this past interest itself would come to about Rs. 4 lakhs. Adding this amount to the main claim of Rs. 18,24,200/-, the valuation of the complaint would exceed to Rs. 20 lakhs. In any case, it was a borderline case and the State Commission would have done well to decide the complaint on its merits rather than returning the complaint with a direction to file the complaint before the district forum after reducing its valuation. Such a direction in our view' was unwarranted in the present case and is legally unsustainable."

 

Recently in Ravi Marwah v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., :2016(3) CLT 20 : 2016(3) C.P.R. 258 (NCDRC) (New Delhi) following observations are made:

“The legal proposition which emerges from the decision of this Commission in Swarn Talwar (supra) which was later upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that since the interest in such matters is awarded by way of compensation, the amount of interest claimed by the flat buyers needs to be added to the principal amount paid by them for the purpose of deciding whether a particular complaint falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission or not. In both these cases, when compensation claimed in the form of interest by the complainants is added to the principal amount paid by them, the aggregates comes to more than Rupees one crore. Therefore, it would difficult for us to accept the contention that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints and the complainants should be relegated to the concerned State Commission. “

In Muneesh Malhotra v. ERA Land make (India) Ltd. (M/s.): 2016 DNJ 1 : 2016(2) C.P.J. 258 : 2016(1) C.P.R. 210 (N.C.D.R.C.) 

. “In view of the discussion above, the value of service allegedly availed by the compensation and compensation which can be reasonably claimed would be L 19,96,114/- plus 18% interest on the said amount for five years, which would be somewhere around L 18.00 lacs approximately. If we add the aforesaid two amounts and compensation of L 25,00,000/- for mental agony, the total value would be much less than L 1.00 crore. Therefore, in view of section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. Instant complaint has been filed with a clear attempt to inflate the value of the relief which amounts to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit the hierarchy of the consumer foras. Complaint is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate fora. “

Complaint dismissed.”

In the light of consistent view of the Hon’ble National Commission in Jagdish Thapliyal 's case (supra),Ravi Marwah's case (supra) and  Muneesh Malhotra's case (supra) it is clear that for ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction  of the Consumer Forum the interest claimed before filing the complaint  is also to be taken into consideration. Ritu Duggal 's case (supra) seems to be decided on its own facts, and therefore does not help the complainant.

            In the backdrop of the above legal position we come to the relief claimed in the present complaint. As per Section 11 (1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum is up to Rs. 20 lakhs. The complainant has claimed the refund of the amount deposited in the sum of Rs. 11, 50,000/– and Rs. 29, 88, 650/– (approximately) towards interest  at the rate of 24% per annum from 18/2/2005 till 17/6/2016 making the total refund amount of Rs. 41, 38, 650/–. In addition, compensation in the sum of Rs. 500,000/– and litigation charges of Rs. 100,000/– are also claimed by the complainant against the opposite party.

In view of the above, the complaint be returned against receipt to the complainant along with copies of documents filed and court fee, after obtaining copies of the same, for presentation before Hon’ble State Commission.

 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost by post.  This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

  

   File be consigned to record room.    

   Pronounced in open Forum on 24/10/2016.

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                           (H M VYAS)                                                           (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                              MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER