Order No. 3 dated 14.11.2018.
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 on 25th June, 2014 for the south-east location on the second floor of the flat total area 1207 Sq Ft. and the total value of the said flat was fixed at Rs. 37,00,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 25,00,000/- on the date of agreement. Subsequently the complainant purchased the flat being No. 3- D on the 3rd floor measuring 1207 Sq Ft. and the total value was fixed at Rs. 30,00,000/- which was paid by the complainant in the same year. After purchase of said flat the complainant stated that the complainant faced an unique problem in the holding as the OP no 1. started to extend the construction of the building area G + 5 to G + 7 along with commercial stalls etc etc. some defects in the flat was found which the complainant cured by repairing from his own pocket which cost him Rs. 1,35,583/-. It is also alleged that the OP no.1 also made some unauthorized construction in the flat building area. The complainant also stated that the OP 1 violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, he did not complete the entrance area, stair etc. The complainant has alleged that the longevity of the flat has been decreased due to explanation of the floor from G+5 to G+ 7 and there is life risk at any time. The complainant also claimed that the OP no.1 has not handed over the completion certificate and or possession certificate in respect of said flat.
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.1,55,583/- 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 30,00,000/-.
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, 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.
