Order No. 11 / Dated 16/08/2017.

Parties are present.

            Today is fixed for hearing.

            Petition challenging the maintainability of the case is registered as MA 188 of 2017.  The MA is taken up for hearing along with its objection. 

Heard Ld. Lawyers of both the sides.

            Considered.

In filing this petition it is stated that the complainant booked the subject flat at a total sum of Rs.5,84,520/- against the total value of Rs.18,90,000/-.  It is alleged that as per agreement for sale dated 06-09-2013 the value of goods and service is Rs.18,90,000/- and the compensation/damage claimed is Rs.3,78,000/-, the total value of goods and service and compensation is Rs.22,68,000/- and hence, the case is not maintainable before District Fora.  It is stated that District Fora shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of goods and service and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20,000/-.  It is stated that the case may be dismissed as being not maintainable for pecuniary jurisdiction in the District Forum. 

In filing written objection it is stated by the complainant that parties have entered into an Agreement for Sale on 06-09-2013.  The complainants have paid a total sum of Rs.5,84,520/- to the OP out of total consideration in terms of the said agreemnt for sale dated 06-09-2013.  In terms of the said agreement sale should have been completed within 05-09-2015.  The next instalment by the complainant was to be paid on completion of the first floor casting but the first floor casting has not been completed till the expiry of the term of the agreement dated 06-09-2013.  It is stated that the total claim of the complainants in respect of the correct value of the goods in terms of the settled principle of law is much below the prescribed limit of Rs.20 lakhs and, as such, cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the District Fora.  It is denied that the total goods and value of service and the compensation is Rs.22,68,000/-.  The complainant has prayed for dismissal of the mis-application.

In the petition of complaint we find that the total consideration of the subject flat together with a parking space is Rs.18,90,000/-.  The complainatns have prayed for refund of sum of Rs.5,84,520/- together with interest @12% p.a. and also together with a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- as damage or pecuniary loss.  We find that the value of the goods and service is Rs.18,90,000/- and the compensation/damage claimed is Rs.3,78,000/- i.e., the total value of goods and service and the compensation is Rs.22,68,000/-. 

Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 7 SCC 791 Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & anr. has observed that the allegation of pecuniary juirisdiction of territorial jurisdiction has to be dealt with before the Court or Forum where the suit or complaint has been instituted.  It is manifestly essential for the complainant to value the goods or services which the OPs are provided as also the compensation, if any, claimed by the complainant because the criteria laid down by the statute is ‘value’.  In the case of  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Reported in I(2017) CPJ 1 (NC) the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission while discussing on the point has observed thus –

Ït is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21,17 and 11 of the C.P. 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 envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing deficiencies in the goods purchased or the servicers 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 aviled 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….”.

In the case of P.S. Srijan Enclave in RP 279 of 2011 dated 12-03-2012 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that in order to determine the pecuniary jurisdiciton in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.  Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that it is the value of goods or sevices and the compensation claim determines pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  The District Fora enjoys the pecuniary jurisdiction not exceeding Rs.20 lakhs.  It appears that  the value of goods and service is Rs.18,90,000/- and the complainant has also prayed for compesation amounting to Rs.3,78,000/-.   We think that the total value of goods and service and the compesnation exceeds Rs.20 lakhs.  We think that the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint.

Consequently the case stands not maintainable as per C.P. Act being barred by pecuniary limit.

            Hence,

Ordered

That the instant MA 188 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest.

            The case is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in the District Forum as per C.P. Act.

            The complainant, however, is at liberty to file the case before Hon’ble State Commission, West bengal.