11/09/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

            This order relates to hearing on MA 650 of 2014 filed by OP Nos.1 and 2 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground, inter alia, that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The Complainants have filed MA 380 of 2014 for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner for inspection of the complex named Uniworld City along with its deficiencies and for report.  MA 649 of 2013 has been filed by OP No.3 praying for expunging its name from the complaint. 

         As regards the MA 650 of 2014 it has been stated that 8 persons have filed the complaint as flat owners alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicants/OP Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the total valuation of the flats together with the amount of compensation would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and the complaint is not maintainable. 

             The Learned Counsel for the Complainants has submitted that the amount of compensation for the deficiency in service has been claimed to the tune of Rs.71,00,007/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.20 lakh as compensation due to mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.  It is contended that the total amount claimed is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  It appears that the 8 flat owners have filed this application and the total amount in respect of the flats along with compensation would exceed Rs.1 crore and, therefore, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the decision reported in  II 1996 CPJ 103 (NC) [Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr.] that the pecuniary jurisdiction is based on quantum of reliefs put together, that is, aggregate value of goods and compensation or aggregate value of services and compensation.  Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No.2679 of 2011 and RP No.2680 of 2011 [P.S. Srijan Enclave & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Bhargav and Sanjay Dewan].

            The petition of complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  The Complainants are at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.  MA 650 of 2014, MA 380 of 2014 and MA 649 of 2013 are disposed of.