Delhi

New Delhi

CC/2002/2011

Charu Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Parsvnath Builders Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 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./2002/2011                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

Ms. Charu Sood,

W/o Mr. Rajeev Sood,

R/o Rohini Villa,

Bharari Road, Shankli,

•  

 

Versus

1. Parasvnath Builder Pvt. Ltd., through its

Chairman Mr., Pradeep Jain

 

2. Mr. Sanjeev Jain- Managing Director,

Parasvnath Builder Pvt. Ltd.

 

3. Dr. Rajiv Jain- Director,

Parasvnath Builder Pvt. Ltd.

 

4. Mr. P.K. Jain – President,

Parasvnath Builders Pvt. Ltd.

 

5. Mr. Pawan Gupta – Presendent,

Parasvnath Builder Pvt. Ltd.

 

All having their Registered office at:

6.  

19, Barakhamba Road

•  

 

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

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

1. Interest till realization @18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 28,03,550/- ( Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Only);
2. cost of travelling by public transport by bus and air from Shimla to New Delhi and to Ahmadabad repeatedly from the year January, 2008 to March, 2010;
3. payment of Rupees Five Lakhs by the Respondent to the complainant by way of compensation for the loss and damages caused to the complainant by the wrongful acts of the Respondents;
4. cost of the present complaint and proceedings by paid by the respondent to the complainant;
5. Further and other reliefs that the complainant is entitled to.

 

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 as well as the written arguments.

The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 18.01.2018 when both sides appeared and advanced their arguments.

During the Course of arguments , Ld. Counsel for the OP raised objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum , as  the basic sale price of the shop in question is  Rs. 31,46,500/- 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 of 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 05.01.2012

• Date of return of complaint  22/01/2018

• The name of complainant(s)

Ms. Charu Sood,

W/o Mr. Rajeev Sood,

R/o Rohini Villa,

Bharari Road, Shankli,

•  

• 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 that the cost of the flat is more than 20 lac and as such  the aggregate value of the  alleged flat and reliefs  claimed 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  22/01/2018. 

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