HON’BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Revision No. 144 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Meerut (for short “the District Forum”) and allowed the Revision filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party.

2.       The brief facts, as stated in the Complaint, are that on 20.09.2006 the Complainant had booked flat no. D-2/406, Third Floor, Supertech Palm Greens, measuring area 1914 sq. ft. and paid an amount of ₹13,56,089/- within one month of the booking i.e. 20.09.2006.  The Complainant pleaded that the actual possession of the allotted flat was not given to him, as the Residential Scheme of the Opposite Party/Company was not fully developed.  He further averred that there were no developmental works going on at the site and despite several requests, possession of the allotted flat was not given.  The Complainant stated that only an amount of ₹1,55,000/- towards one time charge, maintenance, security covered and car parking and electrical installation charges, was to be paid at the time of allotment.  A legal notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 22.05.2012 but there was no reply.

3.       Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum, seeking the following reliefs:

 “A.    That the Hon’ble Forum should order the respondent to provide the full and developed possession of the allotted flat in the Residential Scheme of “Supertech Plam Greens” in the respondent’s company with new flat no. D-2/406 (old no. F-406) third floor, measuring area 1914 sq. ft. at Sports Goods Complex, Major Dyaan Chand Park, Hapur Bye-pass Road, Meerut Delhi Highway, District Meerut to the complainant instantly.

B.       That the Hon’ble Forum should order the respondent to pay 11% interest p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant for the allotted flat with new flat no. D-2/406 (old no. F-406) third floor, measuring area 1914 sq. ft. at Sports Goods Complex, Major Dyaan Chand Park, Hapur Bye-pass Road, Meerut Delhi Highway, District Meerut from 26.10.2006 to the date of giving the full possession for which the interest amount from 26.10.2006 to 06.06.2012 is estimated to be Rs.8,35,000/-.

C.       That the Hon’ble forum should order the respondent to pay the notice expense amount Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental and financial loss to the complainant.

D.      That the Hon’ble forum should order the respondent to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental and financial loss to the complainant.

E.       That the Hon’ble Forum should order the respondent to pay the complaint expense as Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

F.       That any other relief against the respondent and in favour of the complainant which the Hon’ble Forum find appropriate should be paid to the complainant by the respondent.”

4.       The Opposite Party filed its reply before the District Forum, admitting that the Complainant had paid an amount of ₹13,56,089/- against the said flat but averred that there was no specific date, month or year mentioned for handing over the possession of the flat but it was only a mutual understanding that the Opposite Party would complete the project in a reasonable time and hand over the flat at the earliest to the Complainant. 

5.       Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that an interim application was preferred by the Complainant before the District Forum and the District Forum vide order dated 05.02.2014 had allowed the application, observing as follows:

“The complaint was presented.  The complainant has presented a request letter in order to get the possession of the allotted flat after the completion of its under protest formalities.  According to the complainant the allotted flat is not fully developed.  The complainant has also filed an affidavit in support of his request letter.  

Firstly the deficiencies of the complainant are clearly seen because the respondent has not developed the allotted flat timely.  The complainant needs a place to stay.

Therefore the respondent is ordered to provide the possession of the allotted flat to the complainant after completing the under protest formalities within one month.

Fixed for the complainant’s evidence dated 07.04.2014.”

6.       Thereafter, another application was preferred by the Opposite Party seeking a direction to the Complainant to pay an amount of ₹11,73,049/- and take the possession of the flat.

7.       The District Forum vide its order dated 10.11.2014 observed as follows:

“The respondent has presented the request letter that the District Forum has ordered dated 05.02.2014 that the respondent will complete all the formalities and provide the possession of the flat to the complainant.  The respondent has presented the copy of the description of the last and final payment along with the request letter where it is mentioned that Rs.11,73,049/- has been pending on behalf of the complainant and by depositing the said amount the complainant can get the possession of the flat.

The complainant has objected the above said statement and has stated that the complainant has booked a flat at Supertech on 20.09.2006 from the respondent whose total cost as Rs.15,11,069/- amongst which Rs.1,55,000/- has to be deposited at the time of possession which is regarding the maintenance, electric meter & parking charges.  The complainant has deposited Rs.13,56,089/- within one month i.e. from 20.09.2006 to 26.10.2006 and the outstanding amount Rs.1,55,000/- has to be deposited at the time of possession but the respondent aware the complainant through his letter dated 19.11.2007 that he is not in the position to give the possession.  Therefore the respondent has violated the rules and regulations.  The respondent has wrongly mentioned the outstanding amount Rs.11,73,049/- in order to get rid of the compliance of the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Forum.

The matter was heard and the annexure were examined.

According to the complainant he has deposited the total cost of the questionable flat marked as Rs.13,46,089/- and only the outstanding amount Rs.1,55,000/- has been left which has to be deposited at the time of possession.

The complainant has also argued that the respondent has prepared the full and final statement of accounts arbitrary because service tax was applied from 01.07.2010 whereas the complainant has already paid the full amount in the year 2006.

By looking at the full and final statement of accounts presented by the respondent clearly depicts that the respondent has increased the price arbitrarily whereas the complainant has already paid the amount Rs.13,56,089/- as mentioned in the contract and the outstanding amount Rs.1,55,000/- has to be paid at the time of possession.

It is clear that the respondent is intentionally not complying the order dated 05.02.2014 passed by the District Forum whereas the full and final statement of accounts has been prepared wrongly in order for not providing the possession of the said flat by mentioning incorrect excessive amount.  This is total arbitrary and illegal proceeding of the respondent.

Therefore under the above said circumstances it is appropriate to dismiss above said request letter dated 18.02.2014 presented by the respondent.

ORDER

The above said request letter dated 18.02.2014 presented by the respondent is dismissed.  The respondent is ordered to give the possession of the above said flat to the complainant after its whole development within one month or else further proceedings will be done against the respondent if the order passed by the District Forum is not compliance.  Annexed for interim order dated 23.12.2014.”

8.       The Opposite Party aggrieved by this order preferred Revision No. 144 of 2014 before the State Commission.  The State Commission, while allowing the Revision, observed as follows:

“Looking into the entire facts and circumstances on record and the law as is aforesaid, we are of this view that the impugned order is not sustainable as it has been passed by the District Consumer Forum without looking to this aspect as to what payment is made by the opposite party and what has to be paid or is demanded by the opposite party and such type of interim order cannot be passed by which it reveals that the relief sought in the complaint substantially has been allowed before hearing on the complaint by way of interim order.  In this case before us there is a dispute pertaining to the cost of flat concerned and the payment made by the complainant and the payment is demanded by the opposite party and since Consumer Foras are not the instrumentalities to settle the cost between the parties, the District Consumer Forum concerned was not under obligation to pass interim order, thereby ignoring the factum of the cost of the flat and the dispute pertaining to cost of the flat in between parties.

So far as the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it was incumbent upon the District Consumer Forum to get it first decided as to whether the District Consumer Forum was having any pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the dispute in between the parties.  So far as the question of pecuniary jurisdiction in this case is concerned, since the possession of the flat has been sought by the complainant and the cost of the flat is shown by both the parties to the tune of Rs.15,11,070/-, the complaint case before the District Consumer Forum cannot be held beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Meerut because whatever may be the other charges in respect to interest on delay payment, holding charges, advance maintenance charges, interest on maintenance charges, inter connection charges, water connection charges aggregating to Rs.10,12,617/- demanded by the opposite party cannot be included to the cost of the flat.  Such type of charges demanded by the opposite party have to be taken into account for consideration of its payment or not by the District Consumer Forum before passing an order for possession to be delivered to the complainant by the opposite party and since the District Consumer Forum have not taken into consideration the charges before passing the impugned order which seems to have been passed awarding the entire relief claimed by the complainant in the complaint, the impugned order cannot be sustained.  Hence, this revision deserves to be allowed accordingly.”

9.       Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Complainant.

10.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that the District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction as the total value of the flat was ₹15,11,069/- and an amount of ₹13,56,089/- was already paid within one month from the date of booking of the flat in question. 

11.     Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party submitted that the order of the State Commission with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction was right and that the District Forum had granted relief in the interim application, which is equivalent to the prayer of the Complainant in the main Complaint.

12.     At the outset, without addressing to the merits of the case and having regard to the argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the District Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, the very maintainability of the Complaint before the District Forum needs to be seen.  At the cost of repetition, the reliefs prayed for by the Complainant in the Complaint read as follows:

“A.     That the Hon’ble Forum should order the respondent to provide the full and developed possession of the allotted flat in the Residential Scheme of “Supertech Plam Greens” in the respondent’s company with new flat no. D-2/406 (old no. F-406) third floor, measuring area 1914 sq. ft. at Sports Goods Complex, Major Dyaan Chand Park, Hapur Bye-pass Road, Meerut Delhi Highway, District Meerut to the complainant instantly.

B.       That the Hon’ble Forum should order the respondent to pay 11% interest p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant for the allotted flat with new flat no. D-2/406 (old no. F-406) third floor, measuring area 1914 sq. ft. at Sports Goods Complex, Major Dyaan Chand Park, Hapur Bye-pass Road, Meerut Delhi Highway, District Meerut from 26.10.2006 to the date of giving the full possession for which the interest amount from 26.10.2006 to 06.06.2012 is estimated to be Rs.8,35,000/-.

C.       That the Hon’ble forum should order the respondent to pay the notice expense amount Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental and financial loss to the complainant.

D.      That the Hon’ble forum should order the respondent to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental and financial loss to the complainant.

E.       That the Hon’ble Forum should order the respondent to pay the complaint expense as Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

F.       That any other relief against the respondent and in favour of the complainant which the Hon’ble Forum find appropriate should be paid to the complainant by the respondent.”

13.     The pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates that the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed should not exceed ₹20,00,000/-.  Section 11 reads as hereunder:

 “11.  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 twenty lakhs. …”  

14.     While the State Commission has rightly observed that the District Forum ought not to have passed an interim order, which substantially covers the reliefs prayed for in the main Complaint, without looking into the aspect of payments made and to be made by the Complainant, as demanded by the Respondent/Opposite Party; it has also rightly questioned the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum; but, at the same time, remanding it to the District Forum, at this stage to decide on the pecuniary jurisdiction would only delay the matter further, as it is apparent on the face of record that the claim made by the Complainant is beyond ₹20,00,000/- and the District Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. 

15.     Having regard to the fact that the Complaint is of the year 2012 and that it is apparent that the District Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and also that the pleadings before the District Forum are almost complete, remanding the matter, at this stage, would only delay the proceedings.  In the interest of justice and keeping in view the object and spirit of the Act, it would be appropriate to direct the District Forum to remit the entire record of the case to the State Commission for its adjudication on merits.  It is requested that the State Commission shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months from today.  To reiterate, the merits of the case have not been addressed to in this Revision Petition.            

16.     The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.