DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1048 of 2017
Date of institution: 11.12.2017 Date of decision : 02.11.2018
S.K. Sharma son of Shri Khush Ram Sharma, resident of House No.287, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Registered), SCO No.672, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Executive Director/authorised representative.
2. Navjeet Singh, President, Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Registered), SCO No.672, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Present: Shri Tarun Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
OP ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant agreed to purchase 150 sq. yards of plot in project of OPs named as Sky Rock City Welfare Society by becoming member of OP society. Total sale price of the plot was Rs.18.00 lakhs. Full payment was made by complainant to OPs on different dates as mentioned below:
Sr.No. | Date | Receipt Nos. | Amount |
1. | 01.08.2011 | 3297 | 10,000.00 |
2. | 21.12.2011 | 5465 | 4,50,000.00 |
3. | 20.04.2012 | 7755 | 4,50,000.00 |
4. | 21.08.2012 | 9290 | 4,50,000.00 |
5. | 21.08.2012 | 9291 | 1,12,500.00 |
6. | 22.03.2014 | 11452 | 1,20,000.00 |
7. | 22.03.2014 | 11453 | 1,50,000.00 |
8. | 24.09.2015 | 12152 | 1,12,500.00 |
| | Total: | 18,55,000.00 |
Provisional allotment letter was issued in favour of complainant for allotting Plot No.J-60 to him. Signatures of complainant were obtained on various documents. Complainant visited the work site for finding that no development activity carried on the spot. Despite making of entire payment by complainant, it has been found that OPs are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot because of non obtaining of requisite sanctions. OP No.2 has been sent to imprisonment by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab as per information derived by complainant through newspapers. Even FIR against OPs for offences of cheating and defrauding has been registered and that is why this complaint filed for seeking refund of the deposited amount of Rs.18,55,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum upto the date of payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.
2. Despite grant of chances, written statement has not been filed by OPs. Thereafter none appeared for OPs and as such OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. First and foremost point for consideration is as to whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction or not. After going through contents of the complaint and relief clause, it is made out that refund of paid amount of Rs.18,55,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum sought alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. If the aggregate of amounts of compensation for mental harassment and agony and of litigation expenses alongwith that of refund amount of Rs.18,55,000/- taken into consideration, then this means that the relief claimed is of amount of Rs.24,05,000/-. This Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with cases, where aggregate of amounts of reliefs claimed is less than Rs.20.00 lakhs or is Rs.20.00 lakhs.
6. As per law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2016(4) CPR 83 for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value of cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered. Interest amount has to be taken into consideration alongwith compensation, if any, claimed for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. That view reiterated again by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.1364 of 2017 titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others Vs. Lalitha Saini, decided on 21.08.2017. Rather in the later mentioned case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., it has been specifically pointed out that decision given by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors (supra) has to be followed by all the Fora below and also by the Benches of Hon’ble National Commission until different view happens to be of larger Bench. Specific reference to Para No.9 of case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., (ibid) can be made in this respect. In view of this legal position, there is no escape from the conclusion that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Being so, complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.
7. In view of above discussion, it is observed that this Forum has no jurisdiction and as such complaint deserves to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Commission because this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction and order passed accordingly. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
November 02, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
