BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

    11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

ORDERS ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 11 OF CONSUMER PRORECTION ACT 1986 FILED BY OP No.1 dated 18.10.2021

1. OP No.1 by filing this application request this Commission stating that on the date of filing this complaint, this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant was supposed to show value of Rs.2,44,29,936/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. The OP No.1 also contends that the complainant at para No.4 clearly states that the total sale consideration of flat No.C-1-4053 would be Rs.2,29,29,926/- and complainant claims refund of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 24% interest p.a. from the date of payment and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.  Therefore, he submits that on the date of filing this complaint, this Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. The complainant files objections to this I.A. stating that the claim is less than Rs.20,00,000/- and this Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant has paid in all Rs.10,00,000/- as advance in respect of the flat and complainant seeks refund of this amount with interest and compensation.

4. Heard the arguments of both the sides.  We perused the records.

5.  The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1.  Whether this Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of filing the complaint?
2. What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative

      Point No.2: As per final orders

REASONS

7. Point Nos.1:  The advocate for OP No.1 vehemently argues that according to the allegations made in the complaint, the value of the flat was Rs.2,29,29,926/- and as per Section 11(1) of C.P.Act 1986 for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the flat and claim amount shall be taken into consideration. Therefore, he submits that on the date of filing this complaint, the total value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs.2,44,29,936/-.  In support of his argument, he place the reliance on the following decisions:-

1. Abrish Kumar Shukla and 21 others Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2017)1 CPJ 1 (NC.
2. Renu Singh Vs. Experian Developers Private Limited (2018) III CPJ 370 (NC).
3. Gurumukh Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Others.
4. The order in CC 1083/2019 dated 19.12.2020 on the file of 2^nd Additional District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru.
5. The order in CC 1553/2016 dated 30.03.2019 on the file of 3^rd Additional District Consumer Commission Bengaluru.

8. Whereas the advocate for complainant submits that the claim is less than Rs.20,00,000/-.  Therefore, on the date of filing the complaint, District Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. In order to appreciate the contends of the respective parties, it is referred Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986 which read thus:-

11(1): Jurisdiction of the District Forum: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs).

10. This complaint came to be filed on 26.02.2020 under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986.  As per Section 11 (1) of C.P.Act, 1986 the value of the goods or services and claim in the complaint shall be taken into consideration to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction.
11. The complainant himself admits in the complaint that he has paid in all Rs.10,00,000/- as advance money to the OPs and OPs represented the complainant that total sale consideration of the said flat would be Rs.2,29,29,926/-.  The complainant claims refund of Rs.10,00,000/- compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest at 24% p.a. on Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of payment till realization.
12. As per Section 11(1), the interest amount from the date of payment till the date of filling complaint on Rs.10,00,000/- shall have to be taken into consideration as the claim.  The complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.03.2018 and Rs.8,00,000/- on 19.05.2018, if claim of interest at 18% on this two days till filing of this complaint is taken into consideration, the interest portion would be rupees more than a lakh. Therefore, the claim of the complainant itself more than Rs.16,00,000/.  It is relevant to note that the complainant had submitted application for allotment of flat on 31.03.2018 bearing No.C1-4053 at super built up area and rate per sq.ft. by mentioning Rs.9,412/-.  If this value is taken into consideration, the value of the flat comes to Rs.1,92,83,964/-.  Whereas the OPs had sent intimation letter showing the value of flat is Rs.2,29,29,926/-.  The complainant also admits this price quoted by the OPs in para no.4 of the complaint.  Therefore, the value of the flat is Rs.2,29,29,926/-.  If this value is added to the claim amount it would be more than Rs.2,44,29,936/-.  Therefore, the value of the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction on the date of filing the complaint under C.P.Act, 1986 was more than Rs.20,00,000/-.  Therefore, this Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of filing the complaint.  The issue involved in the above three decisions squarely appicable to the present case on hand.
13. The question arises, whether this complaint can be continued before this Commission after enactment to C.P.Act, 2019? Wherein pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commission is enhanced to Rs.1,00,00,000/- i.e. consideration amount paid.  Even though consideration amount is Rs.10,00,000/-, but complaint came to be filed under the provision of C.P.Act, 1986 as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint was not maintainable before District Forum on that date of filing the complaint.
14. We cannot continue the proceedings under the new C.P.Act, 2019 which has retrospective effect. This reasoning of us is supported by the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission as follows:-

1. 2021 (2) CPR 398 in the matter of Neena Aneja Vs. Jain Prakash Associates Ltd., dated 16^th March, 2021.
2. The order of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and three others dated 20.08.2020 in CC No.833/2020.

15. In both decisions it has been categorically ruled that C.P.Act, 2019 has not retrospective effect. It is relevant to refer the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neena Aneja Vs. Jain Prakash Associates Ltd., at para No.71 which read thus:-

71. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.  While allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned judgement and order of the NCDRC dated 30 July 2020 and the review order dated 5 October 2020, directing a previously instituted consumer case under the Act of 1986 to be filled before the appropriate forum in terms of the pecuniary limits set under the Act of 2019, shall stand set aside;

(ii) As a consequence of (i) above, the national Commission shall continue hearing the consumer case instituted by the appellants;

(iii) All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 as explained above and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019 and

(iv) The respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant quantified at Rupees two lakhs which shall be payable within four weeks.

16.  The Hon’ble State Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction under C.P.Act, 1986 up to Rs.1 crore even on the date of filing the complaint before this Forum.  The Hon’ble State Commission under C.P.Act, 1986 had no pecuniary jurisdiction.  The complainant was required to file this complaint before the Hon’ble National Commission which had pecuniary jurisdiction where the value of the goods or service and compensation if any claim exceed Rs.1 crore.  As indicated in the preceding paragraph on the date of filing this complaint, the Hon’ble National Commission under C.P.Act, 1986 alone has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Therefore, I.A. requires to be allowed and complaint requires tobe returned to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble National Commission.   
17. Point No.2:- Discussion referred above, hence, we proceed to pass the following  

  O R D E R

1. The I.A. filed by OP No.1 under Section 11 of C.P.Act, 1986 is allowed.
2. This District Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction on the date of filing the complaint on 26.02.2020 under the provision of C.P.Act, 1986 and the said complaint cannot be continued before this Commission.
3. Return the complaint with all the documents to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble National Commission.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 11^th day of January, 2022)