This Consumer Complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s. Advance Ispat (India) Ltd. against the Opposite Party, M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked two Unit/Flat No. T 12-110 (11th Floor) Area 1855 sq. ft. & T-17- 902 (9th Floor)) Area 1855 sq. ft., in Parasvnath Plesant, Dharuhera, Haryana (Customer Code A0087) & A0085) respectively with the respondent by depositing a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- vide two cheques No.570100 & 570099, drawn on Bank of India Branch New Delhi on 11.4.2006. Total cost of flats is Rs.66,78,000/-. The complainant was issued two provisional allotment letters dated 14.3.2007 by the respondent in respect of the above said two units/flats. The complainant had paid to the respondent a total amount of Rs.24,37,470/- against the above said units till June, 2008 and the respondent had executed an agreement for two flats in favour of the complainant on 14.8.2008. 3. The complainant had sent various letters to find out the status of construction particularly letter dated 20.2.2011 and 22.5.2014. However, no reply was given by the OP. When there was no response from the OP and there was no progress in the construction, the complainant sent registered letter dated 24.10.2016 to the OP asking for refund of the paid amount of Rs.24,37,470/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund. No reply was received by the complainant even of this registered letter. Then the complainant sent Legal Notice dated 7.11.2016 to the OP for refunding the paid amount alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. within a period of seven days. However, no response was received by the complainant even of this Legal Notice. 4. The complainant has then filed the present Consumer Complaint. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant was heard at the admission stage on the maintainability of the complaint. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has requested for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.24,37,470/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit which comes to Rs.55,21,870/-. Alongwith this prayer, complainant has also requested for legal charges of Rs.5 lakhs, damages and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs as well as business loss of Rs.10 lakhs. Thus, the value of the complaint is more than Rs.1 crore and therefore this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 7. I have carefully considered the prayers made in the complaint and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in this regard. Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states as under: “21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission- “ to entertain- the complaints where the value of the goods or servicesand compensation, if any, claim exceeds Rs.1 crore.
8. It is evident that the main prayer is in respect of refund of the deposited amount of Rs.24,37,470/-. The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla &Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC). A reading of this judgment shows that this Commission has held that in cases where even the part 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. However, this judgment is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested. Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement. In the cases of refund, the value of complaint has to be the value of the amount deposited plus compensation claimed. Here the value of the goods and services is only Rs.24,37,470/- and the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs has been demanded. So, the total value of the complaint becomes only Rs.34,37,470/-. This Commission has also allowed interest as compensation. First of all, 24% p.a. interest is not payable on the amount of refund and there is no such provision. The recent trend in awarding such interest is ranging from 9% to 14% p.a. However, even if the total amount of interest claimed by the complainant is also added, then also the total figure comes to Rs.89,59,340/-. In addition to that, no item can be added to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction for the complaint case. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 21(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the value of goods and services alongwith compensation can reach upto only Rs.89,59,340/- in this case even as per averments made by the complainant. As this amount is less than Rs.1 crore, this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint case. 9. Based on the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable in this Commission for want to pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly the Consumer Complaint No.2206 of 2016 stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file the complaint before the concerned State Commission which shall decide the matter on merits as per the due procedure. |
