West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/132/2015

Smt. Mala Chowdhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sita Devi Agarwal - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Bhattarcharya

04 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 

Complaint Case No.132/2015

 

   Order No.12.                                                                                                   Dated : 04/05/2016                                            

  

            The case record is put up before us for passing order.

             This hearing arises out of an application dated 17/03/2016, filed by the opposite parties, praying for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable.  It has been stated by the opposite parties that value of the property as claimed by the complainant is Rs.25,28,000/- and the amount of compensation claimed by the complainants  is amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- and accordingly the total value of the  instant complaint comes to Rs.31,78,000/-.  It is therefore stated by the opposite parties that the instant complaint surpasses the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

             The present petition of complaint has been filed by the complainants who purchased the flat in question in “Saraswati Apartment” of Sangam Garden, situated under Medinipur West Municipality alleging certain deficiency in service  after purchase of the flat and praying for certain reliefs in respect of such deficiency against the opposite parties.

             At the time of hearing of the said petition, Ld. Lawyer for the complainants submitted that pecuniary jurisdiction depends upon the claim made by the complainants and not upon the value of the subjected flat.  It has been further submitted that in the present case, the complainants have filed this case alleging some deficiency in service and the reliefs prayed for such deficiency in service do not exceed pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.20,000,00/- of this Forum. As against this, Ld Lawyer for the opposite parties submitted that the total value of the flat is Rs.25,28,000/- and the amount of compensation claimed by the complainants for such alleged deficiency in service is Rs.6,50,000/- and accordingly the total value of the instance complaint comes to Rs.31,78,000/- and therefore this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

             In support of his said submission, Ld. Lawyer for the complainants referred a ruling of the Hon’ble  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Maharashtra passed in Appeal no.301 of 2014 on 23/12/2014 and submitted that in  the  said ruling,  the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra has been pleased to hold that considering the prayers regarding deficiency in service, the District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction in as much as  the complainant

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

has not claimed in respect of tenement in entirety. As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite parties referred a decision/ruling of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal passed in SC case no.CC/102/2010 on 18/06/2013 and submitted that in the said case, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal has been pleased to hold that if the total valuation of the flat of the complainant and the amount of compensation as claimed are taken into consideration, it would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission  and the petition of complaint is, therefore, not maintainable for  want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Ld. Lawyer of the opposite parties has also  referred another decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  passed in (1996) 2 CPJ (NC) 103/ (1996) 2 CPR (NC) 26/ (1996) 2 CLT (NC) 429/(1996) 2 CPC (NC) 55 and submitted that in the said ruling Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  has been pleased to hold that total value of the goods and / or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the consumer Forum.

             We have gone through the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble commissions and found that the decisions cited by the Ld. Layer for the opposite parties are applicable in the present facts and

circumstances of this case and from those rulings of the Hon’ble Commissions, we find that it has been held that determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.

             So in view of such decision of the Hon’ble Commissions, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case as the dispute relating to the value of the flat in question and the reliefs claimed regarding the service thereof is above 20,000,00/-.

             It is therefore held that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case and accordingly the petition dated 17/03/2016,  filed by the opposite parties,  stands allowed.

                                        Hence, it is,

                                                             ORDERED,

                                              that the complaint case no.132/15 is dismissed on contest for want of pecuniary jurisdiction but in the circumstances, we make no order as to cost.            

              Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 Dictated & corrected by me

              Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                                Sd/-

         President                                       Member                                         President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur