Haryana

StateCommission

A/1117/2015

COL.MANINDER SINGH CHAHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

ARCHANA SONI

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :      1117 of 2015

Date of Institution:        24.12.2015

Date of Decision :         27.01.2016

 

 

 

Col. Maninder Singh Chahal s/o Sh. Joginder Singh Chahal, Resident of House No.577, Phase 3-A, Mohali, Punjab through Special Power of Attorney holder Joginder Singh Chahal s/o late Mohinder Singh, Resident of House No.577, Phase 3-A, Mohali, Punjab.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Sahara India Centre-2, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, U.P., 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.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

_______________

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 26^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by him was returned to present before the appropriate Forum in view of the fact that relief claimed was more than Rs.20.00 lacs and District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

2.      Col. Maninder Singh Chahal-complainant booked a flat with the opposite parties in the project namely Sahara City Homes in Lucknow by depositing Rs.1,05,450/- on February 21^st, 2007.  The opposite parties allotted Flat No.B30/301 Type, 2 Bedroom on third floor to the complainant vide letter dated April 20^th, 2009. The sale consideration of the flat was Rs.21,73,000/-.  As per the allotment letter, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 38 months from the date of allotment letter, that is, April 20^th, 2009.  Inspite of the fact that the complainant had paid the sale consideration as per the agreement, the opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and to handover the possession of the flat.  As per the agreement, the opposite parties were liable to pay interest at the rate of 15%, that is, the assured income and was also liable to pay penalty at the rate of Rs.5/- square ft. per month on account of delay in delivery of possession. 

3.      By filing the present complaint, complainant sought direction to the opposite parties to handover the possession of the flat allotted to him; to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount deposited by him; Rs.5.00 lac as compensation; Rs.5000/- per month with effect from April 01^st, 2012 till the possession is handed over and Rs.55,000/- cost  of litigation. 

4.      The District Forum passed the order considering the price of the flat to be more than Rs.20.00 lac.  The complainant is not seeking relief of refund of the amount rather sought direction to the opposite parties to hand over the possession of the flat to him besides seeking compensation, interest, litigation expenses etc.

5.      Section 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum.  For facilitation, the same is reproduced as under:-

“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. 

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local 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 District Forum 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.”

 6.     A plain reading of Section 11 of the Act suggests that 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.  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.

7.      Whether the complaint is maintainable before the District Consumer Forum or not, the complainant has to demonstrate whether he has filed the complaint before the District Forum 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.

8.      In the instant case, the complainant is seeking possession of the flat and complaining of deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties. The price of the flat is not be taken into consideration because 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;

 

9.      In view of above, the irresistible conclusion is for assessing the value of service, the price of flat cannot be counted because the flat is an immoveable property. So far as seeking compensation for harassment, litigation expenses etc is concerned, 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.

10.    In Sudhakar Vinayak Sapre versus M/s Sanmitra Housing of Bajaj Nagar, II(1992) CPJ 673, Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay, held as under:-

“2. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act defines the jurisdiction of District Forum. Under the said provision, it is provided that the valuation of the complaint has to be determined on the basis of the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any claimed (italicised is ours). In other words, it means that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction has to be computed on the basis of the amount claimed. The flat in question is certainly not a goods. The complaint is essentially about the deficiency in the service where the claim is for Rs. 24,000/- only in addition to the possession of flat. For purposes of possession, no valuation is required to be computed as this is not a Civil Court.…”

11.    The judgments relied upon by the District Forum are distinguishable on the facts and law in the present case. In Omaxe Limited versus Iqbal Begum, First Appeal No.887 of 2013, decided on 16^th May, 2014, Hon’ble National Commission did not take the price of the commercial space, to be the criteria for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. In that case the price of the property was Rs.72,96,222.23. The complainant had also claimed rent at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per month. Hon’ble National Commission by calculating the rent, which was worked out to Rs.3,97,00,000/- added the figure to the price of the premises and by adding determined the pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus, the price of the commercial site was not the criteria. Thus, the case Iqbal Begum’s case (Supra) is not applicable to this case.

12.    In Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bank of Madura Ltd and anr. 1996(2) C.P.J. 103 (N.C.) is also distinguishable because it was not a case of immovable property but a case of letter of credit involving banking transaction.

13.    In Kishori Lal Bablani vs. M/s Aditya Enterprise and others, Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2012, though the price of flat was Rs.40,75,000/-, however, on the basis of government price being mentioned at Rs.1,17,89,511/- besides seeking other relief, Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the complaint not considering the relief but observing that the basic price has to be taken into consideration.

14.    Even after calculating the amount claimed, the amount does not exceed Rs.20.00 lac.  In view of this, order under challenge is set aside and District Forum is directed to entertain the complaint and decide the same in accordance with law. 

15.    Copy of this order be sent to all the District Fora in the State of Haryana.

 

 

Announced 27.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL/UK