Haryana

StateCommission

CC/206/2015

COL.MANINDER SINGH CHAHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA CENTRE-2 - Opp.Party(s)

MANINDER SINGH

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.206 of 2015

                                                       Date of Institution: 23.11.2015                  Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

 

Col. Maninder Singh Chahal, S/o Sh.Joginder Singh Chahal, R/o H.No.577, Phase 3-A Mohali, Punjab through Special Power of Attorney holder Joginder Singh Chahal S/o Late Mohinder Singh R/o H.No.577, Phase 3-A Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Sahara India Centre-2 Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow UP through its Managing Director.

2.      Sahara Prime City Limited, North Zone office Ist Floor, JMD Pacific Square, Near 32^nd Mile Stone, Sector 15, Part-II Gurgaon, Haryana.

          …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Ms.Archana Soni, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by complainant that he applied for allotment of  two bed room type B house with Sahara city Homes, Lucknow on 21.02.2007 and deposited Rs.1,05,450/-. The price of the unit was fixed at Rs.21,73,000/- and possession was to be delivered  within 38 months from the date of allotment, but,  till date possession is not delivered so O.Ps. be directed to deliver the possession and pay interest @ 15% per annum on the entire amount which comes to Rs.11,95,150/-, Rs.Five lacs as compensation for mental agony, to pay Rs.5000/- per month with effect from 01.04.2012 till delivery of possession approximately amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,10,000/-.

2.      Arguments heard on the question of admission.

3.      Previously complaint No.12 of 2015 was filed on 04.02.2015 before the State Commission which was withdrawn on 14.09.2015 with liberty to file the same before proper authority. Thereafter complainant filed complaint No.544 of 2015 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District forum”) which was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015 for want of  pecuniary jurisdiction.  Relevant portion of para No.3 of that order is reproduced as under:-

“Therefore, even if we may not consider the value of the unit even then deficiency/claim as raised by the complainant is beyond Rs.20 lacs i.e. Rs.34,19,130/- + Rs.11,93,304/- + interest on the amount deposited i.e. Rs.35,79,912/- @ 18% p.a. for three years i.e. apprxo. 19,33,152.48 + Rs.2,03,159/- = Rs.67,48,745/- which is beyond the pecuniary limits of this forum as envisaged u/s 11 of Consumer protection Act, 1986.

In the present complaint the relief claimed is altogether different then claimed from District Forum.   Relief claimed by complainant is less than 20 lacs.  Value of flat cannot be taken into consideration for pecuniary jurisdiction as already opined by this Commission in Complaint No.19 of 2014 titled as Vinita Goyal and another Vs.M/s Unitech Limited and another decided on 21.02.2014. It is opined therein as under:-

 

“7.               The Act was enacted with a view to providing better protection to the consumers. As is apparent, the word consumer denotes a person who buys the goods or avails the services yet the Act includes within its ambit the user of goods or services as well. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the term ‘consumer’ which is set out as under:-

 

Section 2(d) “consumer” means any person who—

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes and beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose,.

8.                A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that the consumer is a person who either buys the goods or avails or hires the services and also a person who is user of such goods or services but such use is made with the approval of the first mentioned person. Needless to say, goods or services for commercial purpose or for resale have been excluded from the purview of the Act. Now what emerges from the provision is that a person is consumer either of goods or of services.

9.                Further Section 17 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of this Commission. For facilitation, the same is reproduced as under:-

17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission:-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

 

 

1. to entertain-

1. complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and
2. appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

(b)     to call for the records and passed appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in excercise on its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2)     A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)     the cause of action , wholly or in part, arises.

10.              A plain reading of Section 17 of the Act suggests that there is a fair scheme in the Act with regard to hierarchy of the consumer forums established under the Act. In respect of the goods or services and the compensation, the value of which does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs, the complaint shall lie before the District Forum whereas where the value of such goods or services and the compensation exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore, the complaint lies before the State Commission and where the value of the goods or services and compensation is exceeding rupees one crore, the complaint is maintainable before the National Commission. The legislators were conscious of the fact that the Act deals with either the defect of goods or deficiency in service. So, ordinarily, where the value of goods which are for self consumption and not for resale or commercial purpose, is less than rupees twenty lakhs, the legislators wanted to confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum at the first instance but where the value of such goods or services exceeds such limit, the alternative jurisdictions were conferred.

11.              Now, dealing with the question formulated above, that is, whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or it was required to be filed before the District Consumer Forum. At the threshold, the complainant has to demonstrate whether he has come up before this Commission complaining of defect in goods or deficiency in service. If the grievance pertains to defect of goods, then the value thereof plus compensation shall govern the jurisdiction but if it is with regard to deficiency in service, the complainant has to assess the deficiency in service availed by him.

12.              In the instant case, the complainants are complaining of deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties but when the jurisdictional point is raised the complainants put forth the price of flat, that is, Rs.17,93,750/- for making out jurisdiction of this Commission. It is to be noticed that the sum of Rs.17,93,750/- is the price of flat. The flat does not fall within the definition of ‘goods’. Section 2(i) of the Act states that ‘goods’ means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which defines ‘goods’ is reproduced as under:-

“goods” means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;

13.              In view of above, the irresistible conclusion  is that the complainants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by counting the price of flat as price of service. For assessing the value of service, the price of flat cannot be counted because the flat is an immoveable property. That apart, the complainants have failed to show how the value of services rendered by the opposite parties is more than rupees twenty lakhs.

14.              It is repeated experience of the redressal agencies that the litigants inflate and enhance their claim of compensation to suit the jurisdiction, which they may choose to avail. It is obviously the bounden duty of the redressal agencies themselves to scrutinize the reasonableness of the monetary claim raised by the complainant. It is well settled principle of law that the computation alone does not conclusively govern the pecuniary jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the Act.

15.              The valuation of the relief claimed in the complaint is manifestly and grossly inflated and there is every reason to believe that it has been purposely done to enable the complaint to institute the case before the State Commission.

16.              As regards the compensation, the same is required to be assessed in reference to the loss and injury suffered by the complainant. The complainants have failed to show as to how the value of the service and compensation exceeds rupees twenty lakhs. “

4.      When previous complaint filed on these very grounds is already withdrawn from this Commission and the complainant has filed another complaint before District Forum then second complaint before the Commission is not maintainable.

5.      If the complainant has demanded Rs.Five lacs for mental harassment etc., Rs. 1,10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5000/- per month penalty it does not mean that pecuniary jurisdiction vest in this Commission.  If a party has exaggerated the claim by raising such pleas, it does not mean that the jurisdiction will vest with the State Commission. It is only hypothetical version after withdrawal of first complaint and this relief may or may not be granted to the complainant.

6.      Taking into consideration every aspect, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  Hence the same is hereby dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

December 10th, 2015

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.

s