To-day is fixed for order which has arisen out of the admission hearing of this case.  The case was fixed for admission hearing on 23/07/2018.  On that particular date the matter was moved and we heard the ld advocate for the complainant in full.  Ld advocate for the complainant submitted before this Forum that the complainants purchased one residential flat measuring about 721 Sq. Ft. and one car parking space measuring about 165 Sq. Ft. in area as open garage in the ground floor while for flat consideration money was fixed at Rs.17,30,400/- and that of for the  car parking  space at Rs. 2,39,250/-, the description of which is here in Schedule “B” in the complaint.  It has been submitted further by ld advocate of complainant that though the residential flat was handed over to the complainants but the  possession of the car parking space was not so handed over to the complainants and still it is not handed over for which the  complainants have been suffering a lot and for that reason this instant case has been instituted where complainants have prayed for a direction upon the Opposite Party to pay compensation at the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment to the complainants and alternatively for direction  for refund of the said amount of 2,39,250/- together with proportionate expenses  for said  car parking space, stamp duty of Rs.14,360/- and registration charges  of Rs.21,673/- and lawyer’s fees of Rs.5,000/- for  drafting the said deed of  sale and other expenses  to the complainants  along with interest  @ 12% per annum from the date of  payment of consideration of Rs.2,39,250/-  and further to pay compensation  of Rs.1,50,000/- for escalation  in price of  said car parking space and to pay another Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh)  on the ground of compensation for loss or injury suffered by the complainants due to unfair trade practice of the OP and to pay interest  @ 12 % on the amount of compensation  from the date of filing of the complaint till realization as well as for cost of litigation  as would be fixed  by the Forum.

After hearing Ld advocate for the complainants we have gone through the lines of the petition of complainants as well as the documents as those are filed by the complainants.  It appears that the OP do reside within Siliguri P.S., Dist.- Darjeeling at Rabindra Nagar.  It is also seen that the flat in question is also within Ward No. 21 of

Contd…P/2

-:2:-

Siliguri Municipal Corporation.  The said flat was purchased by virtue of a registered ‘Deed of Sale’ on 05/07/2016.  The value of the said residential flat at second floor including open garage was fixed at Rs. 19,69,650/- and it is mentioned  in the deed that said amount  was received from the complainants prior to registration which is described in ‘memo of consideration’ appended with the Registered Deed.  It is also found from the agreement of sale entered on 20/04/2016 in between the parties that said consideration money for both the flat and the open garage has been mentioned in the same manner there as it has been there in Registered Sale Deed subsequently.  The mention of the price of the open garage has not been there either in agreement  of sale or in the registered sale deed separately but in the petition of complaint  complainants  have mentioned the price of the open garage  separately  showing  Rs. 2,39,250/-.  In this context we are mindful about Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, over “jurisdiction of the District Forum”, where subsection (1) of Section 11 says “Subject to the other provisions of the Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction  to entertain complaint where the value of  the goods  or services  and the compensation, if any,  claimed does not exceed Rupees Twenty lakhs”.  The District Forum is empowered to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.  Thus the pecuniary jurisdiction is nothing but the monetary jurisdiction.  We do consider that in consumer disputes, in order to evaluate the value, the amount claimed as compensation will also be added to the value of goods or services.  Thus wherein a dispute on Rupees Twenty lakhs worth of goods in which the complainant claims compensation of Rupees one lakh, such dispute should not come under the jurisdiction of this District Forum because the value of the complaint including the compensation claimed is more than Rupees twenty lakhs. This District Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute where the value exceeds the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction.  It is pertinent to note here that our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in one Consumer Case No. 97/2016 in between Ambrish Kumar Sukla and 21 others versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has been pleased to observe while interpreting Section 11 of the Act

Contd….P/3

-:3:-

on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction that it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and interest has also to be taken into account for the purpose of determination of such pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  It is further held that the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services as the case may be, is to be considered along with the compensation, if any claimed in the complaint to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction by a Consumer Forum.  This District Forum as per Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot entertain any complaint which exceeds the limit of Rupees Twenty lakhs as pecuniary jurisdiction as it is seen that the value of the flat as per ‘sale Deed’ is Rs.19,69,650/- and while it is added  with the compensation  and interest as claimed in the instant complaint as mentioned in this order earlier which in-totality exceeds  well beyond Rupees Twenty lakhs then, we are of the considered view that on this backdrop of pecuniary jurisdiction this case is not a deserving case  to be admitted as per provision of Section 11(1) of this Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As a logical corollary, this instant case is not admitted.