West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/159/2015

Smt. Dolan Dubey (Mukherjee) & another. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr. Swapan Bhattacharya

17 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

                                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint Case No.159/2015

 

Smt. Dolan Dubey (Mukherjee) & antother…...……Complainant.

Versus

Smt. Sita Devi Agarwal & another ……………….…Opp. Parties.

                                                         

    Order No.12.                                                                                                  Date : 17/05/2016                                                                      

  

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

                   This hearing arises out of three applications dated 19/04/2016 u/o 6, rule 17 of C.P.C.,  filed on 20/04/2016 by the complainants and two other petitions dated 20/04/2016,  filed by opposite party nos.1 to 4 and opposite party no.5 respectively.

                  Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows:-

      Complainants have filed the present complaint  for certain reliefs total amounting to          Rs. 6,00,261/- for deficiency in service in respect of their flat in question,  so purchased from the opposite party nos.1 to 4, which is valued at Rs.14,54,739/-. 

       By filing the present petition for amendment, the complainants have prayed for certain amendments in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint on the ground that some monitory reliefs have been claimed in excessive form and therefore they have prayed for reducing the prayer for payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- and reducing the relief in Para 21 (ix) of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.  Against the said petition for amendment, the opposite party nos.1 to 4 have filed a written objection thereby stating that since the value of the instant complaint surpasses the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, so by the proposed amendment, the complainants  have prayed for amendment in their favour  with a view to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this Forum which is not permissible in law.  In this context, it is to be stated here that the opposite party nos.1 to 4 have filed another petition dated 20/04/2016 praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the total value of the instant complaint comes to Rs.20,55,000/- which includes the relief claimed  and the value of the flat in question and therefore the instant complaint surpasses  the pecuniary jurisdiction of the instant Forum and the petition of complaint is liable to be rejected.

About the  petition dated 20/04/2016 filed by the opposite party nos.1 to 4  regarding maintainability of the present petition of complaint, we find that the flat in question is valued at

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

Rs.14,54,739 and the reliefs claimed in the petition of complaint for certain deficiencies regarding  the flat in question  is  Rs.6,00,261/-.  So the total value of the instant complaint comes to Rs.20,55,000/-.  It is the settled law that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding services relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as compensation demanded in the complaint.  So in view of such settled principles of law, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case as the dispute relating to the value of the flat in question and the reliefs claim regarding the service thereof is above Rs. 20,00,000/-.

            About the prayer for amendment, Ld. Lawyer for the complainants filed a decision of the Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum reported in II (2003) CPJ 155.  As against this,  Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 has referred the decision of the Hon’ble High Court,  Calcutta reported  in AIR 1978 Calcutta 133 (1) and another decision of the Hon’ble High Court,  Calcutta reported in AIR  1979 Calcutta 55.  He has also referred another two decisions of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji reported in (1995) 1 CPJ 225 and (2001) 3 CPR 225 respectively.  We have gone through the aforesaid rulings of the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Commissions and found that the rulings cited by the Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party nos.1 to 4 are applicable in this case.  From the aforesaid rulings, we find that in the ruling reported in AIR 1978 Calcutta 133 (1) and AIR 1979 Calcutta 55, Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold that where the court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit it cannot make any order for amendment to bring the suit within its jurisdiction.  In the said rulings reported in 1995 (1) CPJ 225  and (2001) 3 CPR 225,  Hon’ble Commissions have also been pleased to hold that  “When the original complaint was not of the cognizance of the District Forum, it could not have entertained it at all.  If, the complaint itself was not entertainable, there was no question of the District Forum considering any application for amendment in the complaint.  We therefore hold that the complaint as originally filed was not cognizable by the District Forum and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to allow an amendment application bringing a complaint which was outside its pecuniary jurisdiction within its jurisdiction”.   So in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Commissions, the present petition for amendment of the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.

 

            In view of our above discussions and findings, it is held that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case and consequently the petitions dated 20/04/2016 filed by opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and 5 respectively deserve to be allowed.

                                    Hence, it is,

ORDERED,

                                                                     that the petition dated 19/04/2016 u/o 6, rule 17 of C.P.C., filed by the complainant is rejected and complaint case no.159/2015 is dismissed on contest

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

 

 

 

                                                              ( 3 )

being not maintainable 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 and Corrected by me

      Sd/-B. Pramanik.         Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.       Sd/-D. Sengupta.    Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

            President                      Member                              Member                 President  

                                                                                                                   District Forum    

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur