Delhi

New Delhi

CC/677/2014

Pramod Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

 

                                                   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.677/2014                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Pramod Goel,

 

                                   ..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

              M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

 

...OPPOSITE PARTY.

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

By way of this order we are disposing of the application filed on behalf of OP for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction. 

 The OP has moved an application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction, stating that the cost of the flat in question is  Rs.52,86,750/- and the complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as asked for the refund of the deposited amount  i.e. Rs.13,21,687/-, hence the total relief claim goes beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Forum i.e. Rs.20 lacs.  It is submitted that this Forum does not have Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, 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 reported as Manu/CF/0499/16.

Reply to the application filed on behalf of complainant in which it is stated that the present complaint is of 2014 and judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla was passed in 2016 and hence it has no retrospective effect.  It is further stated on behalf of complainant that the objection of Pecuniary Jurisdiction  should be taken at the first instance, in the present complaint written statement was filed by OP long back and even the  evidence as well as written argument are  filed by the parties  and present complaint is pending for order, hence, the objection of Pecuniary Jurisdiction  is not sustainable in the eyes of Laws.

The issue raised by the complainant in its reply to the application for dismissal of the complaint filed by OP  has been  decided by the  Hon’ble National Commission in the very recent judgment pronounced on 6.4.2018 titled as DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs.  Satish Sharma  in Revision Petition No.110 of 2015 and Satish Sharma Vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. in Revision Petition No.2105 of 2015 in which it was held that: .

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint if the value of the goods bought or services hired or availed as the case might be along with compensation if any, claimed in the complaint did not exceed Rs.20 lakhs.  As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission dated 7.10.2016 in CC NO.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the value of service in such a case would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder.  Admittedly, the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the complainant to the builder for the flat booked by him was more than Rs.53 lakhs.  Therefore, the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.  It would be appropriated to note here that a specific objection with the respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint was taken in the written version filed before the District Forum.  Unfortunately the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction was not addressed either by the District Forum or by the State Commission.  However, the fact remains that since the value of the services hired or availed by the complainant was more than Rs.20 lakhs, the District Forum did not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction”

 

In view of the above discussion, we  are of the considered opinion  that the submission made by the complainant is not applicable in the present case. The cost of the flat/plot and relief claimed exceeds the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum.  Accordingly, the application filed by the OP is allowed and the complaint be returned to the complainant along with annexures/ documents by retaining a copy of the same for records with liberty to file the same before the competent Forum as per the Law. The particulars in the light of the judgement 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 are as follows.

• Date of presentation of complaint :-    04/09/2014.

 

• Date of return of complaint :-                07/12/2018

 

• Name of complainant :-                         Pramod Goel

Copy of the order be given Dasti to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced  in open Forum on  07/12/2018.

 

( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                             PRESIDENT

        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                 (H M VYAS)

                          MEMBER                                                          MEMBER