PRONOUNCED ON: 22nd February 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These two appeals have been filed under section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned orders both dated 16.02.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaints No. 1010/2015 and 84/2016, vide which, the said complaints were ordered to be dismissed on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, with liberty to file fresh complaints before the District Forum. 2. The facts are almost identical in both the cases. The complainants had booked flats in the project Tuscan Floors, Tuscan City, Kundli, Sonepat launched by the opposite party (OP) builder and the sale price in each case was mentioned as Rs. 25,44,426/-. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging that the excess amount of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged by the OP builder should be refunded to them alongwith
interest @ 21% per annum, in addition to compensation in delay in the delivery of possession etc. It was also stated that the OP builder should take steps for registration of the conveyance deed in favour of the complainants. Vide impugned order passed by the State Commission, the said Commission dismissed the complaints, saying that since the relief claimed was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, the complaints should have been filed before the concerned District Forum. Being aggrieved against this order, the appellants are before this Commission by way of the present appeals. 3. It has been contended in the grounds of appeal that the State Commission had taken an erroneous view in dismissing the said complaints, because one of the reliefs sought by the complainants was for the registration of the conveyance deed. Since the price of the flat is more than Rs. 20 lakhs, the consumer complaints were within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents and perused the record. It is clear from the facts on
record that the total sale price of the property in question was above Rs. 20 lakhs. In the consumer complaints, the complainants alleged that they had been made to pay excess price for the said flats and hence, they were entitled to a refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- in each case alongwith interest. In addition, they had requested for the execution of the conveyance deed between the parties. It is clear, therefore, that the subject matter of the consumer dispute involves a property whose value is above Rs. 20 lakhs and hence, the case falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. 5. A three-Member Bench of this Commission have recently deliberated on this issue and passed an order on 07.10.2016 in Consumer Case No. 97/2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. One of the questions that came up before the Bench was as follows:- “(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.” 6. The said question has been answered as follows while pronouncing the order dated 07.10.2016:- “It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.” 7. It is crystal clear from the above that even if, there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant, the total value of the said service is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, in the present case, the pecuniary jurisdiction lies with the State Commission. The impugned orders passed by the State Commission are, therefore, set aside and the present appeals are allowed. The State Commission is directed to decide the complaints in question after giving an opportunity to plead their respective cases before them in accordance with law. Both the parties have been directed to appear before the State Commission for further proceedings on 14.03.2017. |
