Delhi

New Delhi

CC/65/2017

Hem Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

23 Feb 2018

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./65/17                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

1.               Sh. Hem Kumar Gupta

S/o Sh. Umrao Singh,

 

2.                Mrs. Manju Gupta

W/o Sh. Hem Kumar Gupta,

 

Both R/o 101/112, Sector-10,

Partap Nagar, Sanganer,

Jaipur, Rajasthan-302033…… Complainant

 

Versus

M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Having Its Registered Office at

6th Floor, Arunachal Building,

19, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.                                                    ……. Opposite party

 

        

PRESIDENT : ARUN KUMAR ARYA

ORDER

Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., hereinafter  referred to as OP praying for reliefs as under :-

 

1. To pay Rs. 1,85,760/- towards refund of the entire amout of deposited by complainant alonwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of repayment (amounting to Rs. 03,60,374/-) alongwith cost of Rs. 3300/- towards cost of legal notice. (Total amounting to Rs. 05,49,434/-)

 

2. To pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation towards mental tension, agony, harassment and financial loss of the complainant, alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment.

 

3.  To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- toward litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

 Any other order which this Hon’ble Commission may deem  fit in the circumstance of the case be passed in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.

 

         OP was noticed and the matter was contested by it. OP had filed written statement. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit. During the pendency of the present complaint Counsel for OP moved an applicaition raising an objection regarding the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar and have perused the records.

Ld. Counsel for the OP raised objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum , as  the basic sale price of the flat in question is  Rs. 38,70,000/- and damages claimed  put together makes its more than Rs.20 Lakhs. Hence, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose  off the case in the light of Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in CC no. 97/2016 Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

For this purpose we may advert to Section 11of the Act:-

Section11:- (1) Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .

2.  

                   

He has  also drawn our attention to para 14 of the judgement Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, as reproduced below:-

It is evident from a bare perusal of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act and 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 envisage 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 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 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the consumer for the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10 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 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1 crore.

The Hon’ble National Commission has taken similar view also in the case of Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17 and in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155.  

This view is also adopted by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Complaint Case no. 119/12 Ambica Steel Lts., Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

In the light of  Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, and other cases (supra) we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and therefore, the complaint is directed to be returned to complainant with following particulars in the light of the decision  of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on 31/01/2017

• Date of return of complaint  23/02/2018

• The name of complainant(s)
  1. Sh. Hem Kumar Gupta

S/o Sh. Umrao Singh,

2. Mrs. Manju Gupta

W/o Sh. Hem Kumar Gupta,

Both R/o 101/112, Sector-10,

Partap Nagar, Sanganer,

Jaipur, Rajasthan-302033

 

• Brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint.

The judgement in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC came on 07/10/2016, and the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, it is clear thatthe cost of the flat is more than 20 lac and as suchthe aggregate value of thealleged flat and reliefsclaimed exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum.

Keeping in view provision of law and the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC referred to above, we hold that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case and accordingly we order  return of the complaint to file it before the appropriate forum.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 23/02/2018. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                               (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER