Delhi

New Delhi

CC/285/2015

Sweta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Oct 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./285/2015                                                Dated:

           In the matter of:

             Sh. Sweta & A.K.Verma,

            Both R/o Flat no. 204,

           Tower no. 10, Amrapali Grand, Sec- ZETA-1,

          Greater Noida, U.P.-201310

 

                                                                                        …… Complainant

Versus

1. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

          Chairman-cum-Managing Director

           6^th Floor , Arunchal Building

         19, Barakhmbha Road,

            New Delhi-110001

      2    Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

            Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara

            Metro Station Shahdara,

              Delhi-110032

 

                                                                                 ……. Opposite parties

 

H.M.VYAS-  MEMBER

ORDER

          Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against Parsvnath Developers Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP praying for reliefs as under :-

 

1. The OPs be directed to pay the penalty amount of Rs. 04,27,000/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of delaying the payment till its realization.
2. The OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant on account of deficient services rendered by the OPs.
3. The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards legal expenses which the complainant has incurred.
4. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.

 OP was noticed and the matter contested by it. The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 07.05.2018, and counsel for OP moved an application for dismissal of the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 Ld. Counsel for the OP raised objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum,  as  the basic sale price of the flat in question is Rs. 33,23,670/- as per the copy of Flat Buyer Agreement filed by the complainant beside claiming other reliefs when put together makes it much more beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Rs.20 Lakhs. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made on the ground that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose  off 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. reported as Manu/CF/0499/2016.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the Forum has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and relied upon the judgment dated 08/02/2018 of the Hon’ble State Commission PANAJI, GOA in the case titled as Mr. Kuldip Singh Vs M/s Simsai Properties Private Ltd wherein it is held that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be taken at a subsequent stage & that the OP has not taken this plea in its version filed and as such the application is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is to be decided on merits.

We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar on the application and the material  placed before us with relevant provisions of law.  Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the pecuniary jurisdiction reads as below;-

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.   X              X                      X               X                 X                    X                    X                        X

                   

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.

So far the argument & reliance on the judgment of State Commission Panaji by the ld. Counsel of the complainant, we are of the considered view that the facts of that case are distinct and different to the case in hand.  In the case in hand the OP has moved the application for dismissal of the complaint and the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is not taken suo-moto by this Forum.  In the said judgment it is also observed that a judgment without jurisdiction is nullity.  Thus the said judgment does not help the complainant in our view.

In view of above discussions and legal position laid down In the case 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 05/05/2015

• Date of return of complaint  04/10/2018

• The name of complainant(s)

Sh. Sweta & A.K.Verma,

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced  in open Forum on 04/10/2018. 

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