DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No. 26/2015
Sri Rabindra Nath Datta & Others………..………..……...Complainant.
Vs.
Sri Subimal Mitra & Others .………………………………………Op/Ops.
Order No.21 Dated:-31/03/16
The case record is put up before us for passing order.
This hearing arises regarding maintainability of this case as raised by the opposite parties in their written notes of argument filed on 22/02/2016. It has been stated by the opposite parties in paragraph-1 of their said written notes of argument that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum since the aggregate of the value of the property of the complainants with that of the demand of compensation crosses the pecuniary limit of this Forum and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as enumerated is Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. In paragraph-4 of the said written notes of argument it has also been contended by the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation in as much as the earliest among the Deeds of the complainants is of 09/12/2011 and all the alleged deficiency or imperfection arises out of that Deed of Sale dated 09/12/2011 and so the present Complainant is barred by limitation, being filed beyond the period of limitation of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
The present petition of complaint has been filed by as many as eight complainants who purchased the flats in question in Sreema Apartment from the opposite parties alleging certain deficiency in service after purchase of those flats and praying for certain reliefs in respect of such deficiency against the opposite parties.
At the time of hearing on the point of maintainability, as alleged by the opposite parties, Ld. Lawyer of the complainants submitted that after admission of complaint, the
Contd……………P/2
( 2 )
Forum is to follow the procedure as laid down in Section-13 of C.P. Act and there is no scope for entertaining the objections regarding maintainability of the case before final hearing. But to our view, there is no bar in the Act to hear the objection regarding maintainability of the case before final hearing.
Regarding the question of limitation, as raised by the opposite parties, it was submitted by the Ld lawyer for the complainant that out of the eight complainants, complainant no.4 Sujit Samanta purchased the flat in question on 03/12/2013 by a registered Deed of Sale and the present complaint has been filed well within the period of limitation of two years i.e. on 11/03/2015 and as such it can not be said that the case is barred by
limitation. As against this, it has been submitted by the Ld. Lawyer for the opposite parties that the earliest among the Deeds of the complainants is on 09/12/2011 and all the alleged deficiency arises out of that Deed of Sale on and from 09/12/2011 and as such the present complaint which has been filed on 11/03/2015 is clearly barred by limitation.
Since the complainants purchased their respective flats on different date and since the deficiency in service has been raised regarding all those flats, so the date of first purchase of the flat should be considered as to be the starting date of cause of action regarding such alleged deficiency in service. From the petition of complaint, we find that the complainant no.7 and 7(a) purchased the Flat no.1/3 of the disputed Apartment on 09/12/2011 by a registered Deed of Sale. So the said date should be considered as to be the date of starting cause of action regarding such alleged deficiency. The present complaint has filed on 11/03/2015 i.e. long after the period of limitation of two years and as such we are of the view that the present case is barred by limitation.
Regarding the question of pecuniary jurisdiction, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite parties submitted at the time of hearing that as per the petition of complaint, the total value of the flats of the complainants as a whole is Rs.1,04,04,700/- and as such in view of Section-11(1) of the C. P. Act, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case. In reply to such objection Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that pecuniary jurisdiction depends upon the claim made by the complainants and not upon the value of the subjected flats. 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 the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.20,00,000/- of this Forum.
At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer of the opposite parties referred two decisions, one of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in Revision Petition No.2679 of 2011 on 12/03/2012 and another decision of the
Contd……………P/3
( 3 )
Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal passed in Complain Case No. CC/173/2012 on 18/09/2015.
We have gone through the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Commission and found that it has been held by the Hon’ble Commission, that the it is the settled law that the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to houseing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.
So in view of such decisions of the Hon’ble Commissions, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case as the dispute relating to the value of the flats in question and the reliefs claimed regarding the service thereof is above twenty lakhs.
It is therefore held that the present case is barred by limitation and this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.26/2015 is dismissed on contest but in the circumstances, we make no order as to cost.
Let a copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur
