Any other relief, which the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant. ”
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Builder by filing a written version before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant had booked the said plot for speculative purposes. Moreover, it was wrong to say that the OP Builder had given commitment to hand over the possession of the plot within two years of the allotment. It was also stated in the written version that the OP Builder were ready to offer an alternative plot to the complainant and in case, he did not want the alternative plot, the OP Builder was ready to refund the amount deposited by the complainant.
4. The District Forum after taking into account, the averments made before them, passed their order on 26.07.2013, in which they directed as follows:-
“Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, we hereby direct the respondents:-
a) To pay interest @12% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was received by them towards PLC, from the date of its deposit till realisation.
b) To offer possession of plot no. E-276 to the complainant within one month from the date of pronouncement of this order.
c) To pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant with the respondents at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. 31.07.2009 till the decision of the case,
d) To pay Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”
5. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP Builder challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. However, the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP Builder is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. The main ground taken by the OP Builder in appeal before the State Commission was that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to handle the consumer complaint in question, because the agreed price of the plot was quoted as ₹28,87,500/- initially and then as ₹33,05,037/- eventually. However, the State Commission took the view that a consumer complaint could be instituted in the consumer forum of the lowest grade competent to try the complaint and the consumer fora could pass an Award for an amount in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction.
6. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP Builder vehemently argued that the orders passed by both the consumer fora, were perverse in the eyes of law, because the District Forum was not vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction to handle the consumer complaint in question. As per the agreed sale consideration at the time of booking, the value of the plot was well above ₹20 lakh and hence, the District Forum, did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by a larger Bench of this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [(I 2017 CPJ 1 NCC)], CC/97/2016 & allied matters, decided on 07.10.2016],” saying that the value of goods and services at the time of agreement between the parties was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned counsel has further drawn attention to an order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors.” [Air 2013 SC 3060], in which it has been stated as follows:-
“Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction.”
7. The learned counsel for the OP Builder has further drawn attention to the prayer clause in the consumer complaint, saying that the complainant had sought directions for getting the possession of the plot in question, and since they had already offered an alternative plot to him, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/OP. The learned counsel stated that the impugned order was perverse in the eyes of law, as the same was a non-speaking order and had been passed beyond the pleadings made by the complainant and in contravention of record. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh” [(2004) 5 SCC 65]”, saying that wherever the possession of the property was being offered to the complainant, there was no justification for payment of interest on the amount deposited.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction had not been raised by the petitioner/OP builder in proceedings before the District Forum and hence, the petitioner had no right to raise the issue at the stage of appeal or revision petition.
9. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in “GTM Builder & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anuja Goyal” [RP No. 2442 / 2013 decided on 20.04.2015], saying that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction could not be raised at a later stage. The said order of this Commission had been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.10.2015 in an SLP filed before them as SLP(C) No. 18448/2015. The learned counsel argued that while passing order by this Commission in “GTM Builder & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anuja Goyal” (supra), reliance had been placed on an earlier order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited & another (2005) 7 SCC 791,” in which it had been made clear that the issue of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction could not be raised at subsequent stage in proceedings between the parties. The learned counsel further pleaded that the complainant had paid a huge sum of money to the OP Builder, but despite that, the possession of the property had still not be given to him. The orders passed by the Consumer Fora below were, therefore, in accordance with law and should be maintained.
10. In reply, the learned counsel for the OP pointed out that the citations given by the respondents on the issue of jurisdiction related to the Specific Relief Act, whereas the petitioner had quoted an order of the Supreme Court in “Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors.” (supra), which was a case decided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also filed written submissions after the conclusion of the arguments, which have been taken on record. It has been stated in the said written submissions that the respondent/complainant had made a total payment of ₹33,05,037/- to them which was inclusive of the EDC – PLC charges.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent has also filed written submissions which have been taken on record. It has been stated therein that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction had been rightly dealt with by the State Commission in their order and hence, the said order is valid in the eyes of law, keeping in view the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission from time to time.
13. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
14. The main issue involved in the present case relates to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to handle the case. It has been stated in the impugned order by the State Commission that a consumer complaint could be instituted in the consumer forum of the lowest grade, competent to try the complaint and the consumer fora could pass awards for the amounts, in excess of their pecuniary jurisdiction. However, I do not find any reason to agree with the State Commission in this view. The consumer fora at the District and State levels have been vested with the powers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to handle the consumer complaints involving claims not exceeding certain fixed amounts. All consumer complaints involving claims exceeding ₹1 crore are to be filed before the National Commission. In case, the contention made by the State Commission is upheld, it shall be possible for every complainant to file his consumer complaint before the District Forum, which is neither the intention nor the spirit of law. The finding given by the State Commission, therefore, that a consumer complaint could be instituted in the consumer forum of the lowest grade is, therefore, ordered to be set aside, being not in accordance with law.
15. In the present case, the District Forum handled the consumer complaint which was not within their pecuniary jurisdiction, but an objection to that effect was not taken by the opposite parties in proceedings before the District Forum. It is to be decided, therefore, whether such objection, not taken before the District Forum, could be raised at the time of filing appeal before the State Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to place reliance on an order passed by a larger Bench of this Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited” (supra) and also on the order made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director, Health Services Haryana & Ors.” (supra) and stated that the order passed by a forum having no jurisdiction amounted to nullity in the eyes of law. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Another” (supra), in which it has been stated as follows:
“We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) jurisdiction over the subject-matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.”
16. It has been made clear in the above order that if objection about the territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction is not taken by the other party at the earliest, the same cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. However, if a court/tribunal does not have inherent jurisdiction to handle a matter, the order passed by such court/tribunal shall be nullity in the eyes of law. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Commission in the order passed on 20.04.2015 in “GTM Builders & Promoters vs. Anuja Goyal” [RP No. 2442/2013 decided on 20.04.2013]. The order of this Commission was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18448/2015, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2015.
17. As stated already, it is a fact admitted in the present case that the objection with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was taken by the petitioner/opposite party at the appellate stage only. However, if reliance is placed on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Another” (supra), the order passed by the District Forum and duly confirmed by the State Commission, would not be bad in the eyes of law, because the consumer fora do have the jurisdiction over the subject matter. Since the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction was not taken by the petitioner/OP at the earlier stage, they cannot be allowed to raise that objection at a subsequent stage, placing reliance on the judgment above. This view also finds support from the fact that substantial amount of money had been deposited by the respondent/complainant with the petitioner/OP, but they were not able to obtain possession of the property within the time fixed, as per the agreement between the parties. It shall be in the interest of justice that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest possible, rather than initiating the whole process again, by asking the consumer to file a fresh complaint in the matter before the State Commission.
18. It is further observed that the State Commission have directed the petitioner to offer possession of plot E-276 to the complainant and also asked to pay interest @9% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from 31.07.2009 till the decision of the case. Further, the District Forum directed the petitioner/OP to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount of ₹1 lakh received by them towards preferential location charges, since the plot in question, is not a corner plot. I do not find anything unjust or wrong in the directions given by the District Forum, duly confirmed by the State Commission in the impugned order.
