DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE NO.764/2016

    Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                   Date of Disposal:

     13.12.2017                             24.01.2017                                   05.01.2018

 Complainant:    Smt. Reena Bhaumick, W/o Sri. Gobinda Mohan Bhaumick,

                              28, Italgacha Road, 1 No Airport Gate, Dum Dum,

                              Kolkata-700 028.

                                                                  Vs.

Opposite Party:-   Sri. Susanta Kumar Ghosh (Suman), S/o Gandhi Lal Ghosh,

                                 27B Tarun Sengupta Sarani, P.S.-Dum Dum, Kolkata-700 079.

                                 Residing at-Binapani Bhavan, Top Floor, 106 Italgacha Road,

                                 P.O. & P.S.-Dum Dum, Kolkata-700 028.

P R E S E N T   :- Sri  Siddhartha Ganguli  ….………………………Member.

                         :-  Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.

ORDER: 09

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP did not register the deed of conveyance in respect of the questioned flat in her favour till filing of this complaint. So the Complainant has prayed for either to register the sale deed or to refund the amount as paid by her to the OP and with certain reliefs.

At the very outset of the argument it is noticed by us that the cost of flat which the Complainant intended to purchase is for Rs.19,00,000/- as the agreement for sale reveals. In the prayer portion the Complainant has sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore the total value of the complaint is coming at Rs.21,00,000/-, which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. In view of the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed, does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-.

 Moreover in view of the  judgment passed by the Hon’ble larger Bench of the NCDRC passed in the case of  AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 Others Vs. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE Private Limited, dated 07 Oct 2016, wherein it is mentioned that the order dated 11.08.2016, passed in First Appeal No. 166 of 2016, First Appeal No. 504 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 505 of 2016, the following issues were referred, by a single Member Bench of this Commission to the larger Bench:

(i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.

(ii) ……………………………………

(iii)…………………………………… etc.

The Hon’ble Commission has been held that ‘It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisaged determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the specuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold

for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.

Having regard to the abovementioned judgment we are of the view that as the total cost of the flat in question has crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. But the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum/Court/Commission, if not barred otherwise, in view of the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428).

Hence, the complaint being no-764/2017 is dismissed without any cost being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.              

Member                                                                                             Member                                               

Dictated & Corrected by me