SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant Interlocutory Application has been directed by the OPs challenging the maintainability of the case.
Ld. Advocate appears on behalf of the applicants / OPs has submitted before this Commission that the complainants have filed the instant complaint against them praying for handover of the physical possession of two garages and the shop to the complainants. The development agreement between the complainants and the OPs was executed on 03.01.2011 and the delivery of possession of owners’ allocation was given on 22.02.2016. The instant complaint was filed in December 2018 without assigning any reason as to what prevented the complainants from filing the petition of complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. No reason was given for the delay in filing the petition of complaint. In the statutory period of 2 years no complaint was lodged against the OPs. All on a sudden the complainants have filed the instant case. Therefore, the case is barred u/s 24A of CP Act, 1986 .
Ld. Advocate for the OPs has submitted that the garage and shop room were handed over to the complainants on 22.02.2016. He drew our attention by showing the possession letters both dated 22.02.2016 to that effect which are enclosed with the complaint petition itself as page 20 and page 21. Therefore, the prayer of the complainants is innocuous prayer and therefore the case is not maintainable.
Thirdly, the instant case is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In page 3 of the objection against this IA application the complainants have stated that the total value of the property is Rs.89,20,000/-. The complainants have got 4 flats not 2 flats. Therefore, if we add the compensation along with the flat value, garage value and the shop room value this would exceed the pecuniary limit of this Commission. The value of the alleged 26.7% of the covered area of total constructed area, which the owners are entitled with, would be more than one crore. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the above mentioned grounds.
Ld. Advocate for the complainants has submitted that as per C P Act, 1986 the valuation of the suit is to be decided as per total value of the agreement. He drew our attention by showing the page no. 4 of the Development Agreement wherefrom it appears that the rate per sq. ft. would be Rs.2,000/- (clause 4 of the Agreement). As per clause 16 of the Agreement the owners will be entitled with 26.7% of the covered area. The value of the flats belong to the complainants alongwith the value of the garage and shop room have been mentioned page-3 of the objection against this interlocutory application. Therefore, the complaint case is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Moreover, the complainants have prayed for Completion Certificate. So, there is continuous cause of action and the case is not barred by limitation.
Upon submission of both parties and on perusal of record we find that as per development agreement the measurement of the land is five cottahs eleven chhattacks (mentioned in Schedule A) and the owners are entitled with 26.7% of total covered constructed area. Both the complainants are entitled with total four no. of flats and two garagesand one shoproom. The complainants have stated in their objection against the maintainability petition that as per agreement dated 03.01.2011 the OP themselves have clearly stated in point no. 4 that the rate per sq.ft. would be calculated @ Rs. 2000/-. Based upon this rate the complainants have calculated the the valuation of flats measuring 4080 sq.ft. as Rs.81,60,000/- . The area of the garage is 200 sq.ft. and the valuation comes to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The area of the shoproom is 180 sq.ft. and the valuation would be Rs.3,60,000/- . The complainants have calculated Rs. 89,20,000/- as total value. As per agreement, the complainants are entitled with 26.7 % of the total covered constructed area. The aforementioned area, which is stated by the complainant in para 14 in the objection against the maintainability petition, belongs to the complainants. In the instant case, the complainants are the landowners and valuation of the property is the total value of the land which is to be considered as total consideration on behalf of the complainants. In the agreement, the land value has not been mentioned. Obviously, the constructed covered area is less than the total land area. For the sake of argument, if we consider only the covered constructed area then also the valuation of the total constructed area would be certainly more than Rs. 1.00 crore. At the time the Consumer Complain was instituted before the State Commission, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was in force. In terms of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, the State Commission, at that time, had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a Consumer Complaint where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed, as the case might be and the compensation claimed in the complaint, exceeded Rs. 20 lacs but did not exceed Rs.1 crore.
Section 17(1)(a)(i) of CP Act, 1986 is as follows :
“Section 17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission
- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction –
- To entertain –
- Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakh but does not exceed rupees one crore ; and
- ……………….”
The valuation given by the complainants is Rs. 89,20,000/- for their 26.7% covered area. Therefore, the total value of the land which is to be considered as consideration on behalf of the complainants/landowners is beyond our pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainants have mentioned that the value of the flats measuring 4080 sq.ft., the value of the garage measuring 200 sq.ft. and the value of the shoproom measuring 180 sq.ft. is Rs. 89,20,000/- in total. The complainants have also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000,00/-. Therefore, the case is not maintainable since this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction.
Since the case is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, we refrain ourselves from passing any opinion on other issues involved in the case.
Thus the IA Application being No. IA/354/2019 is allowed on contest and disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, the complaint case being no. CC 906 of 2018 is dismissed since not maintainable before this Commission.
However, the complainants are at liberty to agitate their grievance before the appropriate Forum for the same cause of action.
Thus the Complaint Case being No. CC/906/2018 is disposed of accordingly.
