SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
This day is fixed for passing order.
Upon hearing the Ld. Advocate and on perusal of entire materials on record let the appeal be admitted and registered.
The instant appeal has been directed by the Appellant/Complainant against the order dated 27.03.2023 in CC/41/2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission, Kolkata Unit-IV.
Ld. District Commission dismissed the complaint case being not admitted due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant/complainant has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC has erred in not considering the matter that despite the span of time the developer has failed to deliver the vacant possession of flat with all the common facilities and amenities within 6 months according to the terms of agreement . The Ld. DCDRC has erred in law by dismissing the complaint by stating the reason that the actual value of the flat in question exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commission. As per the notification of Central Government the pecuniary jurisdiction was reduced to from 1.00 crore to 50.00 lakhs to entertain any complaint. Hence, the Ld. Advocate the Complainant/Appellant has prayed for setting the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/complainant has further stated that the complaint case was initially filed before this State Commission being case no. CC/40/2023 and on the date of admission hearing before this Commission it was observed the State Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction of the instant case. Therefore, she has not pressed the complaint which is reflected in the order sheet vide order no. 3 dated 04.05.2023 in CC/40/2023. Ld. Advocate for the complainant/appellant has filed the online copy of the order in support of her submission.
It is very clear that when the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was implemented on 20th July, 2020 as per Section 34, the jurisdiction of the District Commission is as follows:
“Jurisdiction of the District Commission – (1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupee.
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value as it deems fit.”
By the notification dated 21st December, 2021, the Central Government has changed pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission , State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission. As per this notification a complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission where the value the goods of services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50.00 lakh rupees and in State Commission the value the good of services paid as consideration be above Rs. 50.00 lakhs and upto Rs. 2.00 crores and in case of National Commission the pecuniary jurisdiction is more that Rs. 2.00 crore and up to Rs.10.00 crore.
From the documents annexed with the memo of appeal, it is crystal clear that the total consideration of the flat was Rs. 56,50,000/- but the complainant has paid Rs. 35,50,400/- which is well within the pecuniary limit of District Commission.
As per section 11(c) of C.P. Act, 1986, the pecuniary jurisdiction was determined on the basis of total consideration alongwith compensation claimed. But as per C.P. Act 2019 to determine pecuniary jurisdiction only the paid consideration to be considered. In the instant case, the complainant/appellant has paid Rs. 35,50,400/- out of total consideration Rs. 56,50,000/-. Ld. District Commission has observed that if the complaint is allowed to continue it will frustrate the purpose of legislation as there may be a tendency to file the complainant before the District Commission by making a part consideration, the amount of which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission where the total amount of consideration which are actually to be paid for getting the relief and same will be beyond of the jurisdiction of the District Commission. But on careful perusal of the record and section 34 (1) of C.P. Act, 2019 the Act clearly indicates how to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction. In the instant case, the paid consideration is Rs. 35,50,400/-. Therefore, the Ld. District Commission has wrongly decided the value of the case as per C.P. Act, 2019 and dismissed the complaint due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
In view of above, the order of the Ld. District Commission is set aside. There is no bar to proceed with the case as per law before the Ld. District Commission.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit-IV and the Ld. DCDRC is requested to restore the case in its original file and no. and thereafter proceed with the case as per law.
Fix 06.07.2023 appearance of the complainant before the Ld. District Commission for receiving further direction.
The Ld. District Commission is directed to admit the complaint and to issue the notice upon the OPs and thereafter to proceed with the case as per law and to dispose of the case preferably within 3 (three) months.
The appeal is allowed exparte and disposed of accordingly.
