DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO-351/2012
M.A. No-294/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Disposal:
22.11.2017 11.12.2017
Complainant: Sri. Subir Kumar Sett, S/o Late Paresh Nath Seth, Flat no-A-107,
Aspen-II, Siddha Pine, AS/185, Gopalpur, Rajarhat Main Road,
Kolkata-700 136, P.O.-Rajarhat Gopalpur, P.S.-Airport,
District-North 24 Parganas, West Bengal.
Vs.
Opposite Parties: 1) Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
2) Brubhumi Agents Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
3) Premsagar Advisory Services Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
4) Kamyabi Consultants Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
5) Sursarita Advisory Services private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
6) Jai Jinendra Marketing Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
7) Manobal Dealer Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
8) Sukhjit Vyapaar Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
9) Sugan Advisory Services private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
10) Jai Jinendra Distributors Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
11) Manobal Vanijya Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
12) Jaldham Advisory Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
13) Mridul Advisory Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
14) Pawan Putra Barter Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
15) Prabhakar Barter private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
16) Shivasthal Sales Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
17) Surdhuni Advisory Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
18) Surdhuni Advisory Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
19) Sursarita Consultants Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
20) Vidhata Advisory Services Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
21) Arpana Consultancy Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
22) Terapanth Consultancy Services Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
23) Arch Vanjiya Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
24) Newwave Merchants Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
25) Rosemery Distributors Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
26) Delta Vyapaar Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
27) Bluebird Tie-Up Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
28) Sanjivani Vanjiya Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
29) Panghat Supply Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
30) Skylink Merchants Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
31) Sadabahar Vyapaar Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
32) Rimjhim Commodities Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
33) Sidhant Suppliers Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
34) Jhilmil Vyapaar Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
35) Gajbadan Vinimay Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
99A, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016.
36) Senior Executive Facilities, Siddha Real Estate Development
Private Limited, Siddha Pine, AS/185, Gopalpur,
Rajarhat Main Road, Kolkata-700 136,
P.O.-Rajarhat Gopalpur, P.S.-Airport,
District-North 24 Parganas, West Bengal.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.
ORDER: 18
This order is arising out of the MA being no-294/2017 filed by the OPs challenging the maintainability of the complaint.
In the application it is stated by the OPs that the total agreed value of the suit property is for Rs.61,22,250/-. So the said amount is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum in view of the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover in the order passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC in the First Appeal no-FA/828/2013, dated 27.07.2016 has been pleased to mention that before entering into merits to consider whether the Ld. District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the fact that the value of the goods has been mentioned Rs.61,22,250/- in the agreement for sale dated 27.01.2011. The OPs have stated that in view of the said order this application is filed before this Ld. Forum challenging the maintainability of the petition of complaint. The OPs have further stated that the in the arbitration proceeding the Complainant got an award in his favour, but as the Complainant did not challenge the same, hence the said award has got its finality, so after getting the award the proceeding before the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act, 1986 cannot be maintainable. According to OPs if this application is not allowed, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury and prayer is made for allowing the application.
The application has been contested by the Complainant by filing written objection contending that this Ld. Forum is entitled to adjudicate the instant complaint and according to the Complainant the MA-294/2017 is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
We have carefully perused the content of the application, the objection thereto and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties. It is seen by us that in the instant application the value of the suit property is mentioned as Rs.68,22,250/-, but in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, dated 27.07.2016 it is mentioned as Rs.61,22,250/-. Whatever it may be, admittedly both amount has exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. In addition to the value of the goods the Complainant has sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore the total value of this complaint will be for Rs.71,22,205/- or Rs.78,22,250/-. In view of the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or the services and compensation, if any, claimed, does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. But in the instant complaint the value of the goods and compensation has crossed the pecuniary limit of this Ld. Forum.
Moreover in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble larger Bench of the NCDRC passed in the case of AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 Others Vs. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE Private Limited, dated 07 Oct 2016, wherein it is mentioned that the order dated 11.08.2016, passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 2016, First Appeal No. 504 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 505 of 2016, the following issues were referred, by a single Member Bench of this Commission to the larger Bench:
(i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.
(ii) ……………………………………
(iii)…………………………………… etc.
The Hon’ble Commission has been held that ‘It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that 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 envisaged 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. 1.00 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.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 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 specuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold
for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.
Having regard to the abovementioned judgment we are of the view that as the total cost of the goods and compensation has crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction.
Hence, the MA being no-294/2017 is hereby allowed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me
