By Smt. Bandana Roy, President.
Heard the ld advocate for the complainant.
Perused the complaint on affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant.
The case of the complaint, in short is that the OP no1 is a Developer of a residential project situated at Mouza Khanjanchak under Haldia Municipality, Dist. Purba Medinipur and the OP No 1 is the absolute owner of the said plot. The complainant intended to purchase a flat from the OP no.1 and one agreement for sale was made between the parties oin 27th June, 2017 for the 2-A location on the second floor of the flat for a total area measuring 1150 Sq. ft ands the total value of the said vladi was fixed at Rs. 27,50,000/-. Subsequently the complainant purchased the flat by paying the aforesaid amount to the OP no.1 on 1st September, 2017. After purchase of said flat the complainant stated that the complainant faced an unique problem in the holding as the OP no1. Started to extend the construction of the building area G + 5 to G + 7 along with commercial stalls etc etc. It is also alleged that the OP no.1 also made some unauthorized construction in the flat building area. The complainant further stated that after entering in the flat he discovered that the flat has been made by the developer by low quality materials and sand plaster was falling atomically. The complainant alleged that this defect is not reparable and removable by the OP and hence the complainant repaired the same with h is own money of Rs. 2,53,447/-. The complainant also alleged that due to unauthorized extension of the flat from G+5 to G+& , the longevity of the flat has been decreased and there is very serious life risk.
Hence this case has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the OP no1 to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- for illegal construction and to return the amount of Rs.2,53,447/- spend by him for repair of the flat with interest @ 18 % per annum and further Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost and other reliefs.
Now the question is whether the complaint is maintainable due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complaint is maintainable before this Forum but we have perused the decision reported in CC No. 97 of 2016 (Ambarish Kumar
Shukla and others Vs. Ferous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd) decided on 07.10.2016 by the National Commission, wherein it was held that the total consideration of the flat is to be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
In the instant case the valuation of the flat in question is more than 27,00,000/-.
Besides that in 2018 (3)CPR 468 (NC) it has been held that the complaint is not maintainable if it has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Another decision reported in 2018(3) CPR 138 (NC) also held that if the aggregate value of the goods purchased or service hired or availed of by a consumer when added to compensation claimed in the complaint by him exceeds Rs. 1 crore, the National Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Based on the above consideration, it is clear that in the present case, even if total amount of refund is Rs. 15,00,000/- is taken into consideration, the value of the flat crosses the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld Forum.
Hence, we find that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
On the basis of the above discussion, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file the case in the appropriate Forum. The time spent during pendency of this case before this Forum shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation.
