Delhi

New Delhi

CC/125/2017

Sunita Badhwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI Infrastructure Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

 

              CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                  (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                       ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./125/2017                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Mrs. Sunita Badhwar,

W/o Sh. Vijay pal Badhwar

R/o D-13 Second Floor, Tandon Road,

Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi                                                               .…… Complainant no.1

 

2. Smt. Bharti Badhwar

W/o Sh. Ravi Pal Badhwar

R/o c-282 millium Apartment

Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi                                                                     .…… Complainant no.2

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

TDI Infrastructure Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

Vandana Building, Upper Ground Floor,

            11, Tolstory Marg, Connaught Place,

New Delhi.

                                                                                                                           ……. Opposite party

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENT : ARUN KUMAR ARYA

ORDER

Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against TDI Infrastructure Ltd., hereinafter  referred to as OP praying for reliefs as under :-

 

1. An amount of Rs. 07,24,635/- which Opposite Party has received from the complainants.
2. Amount of Rs. 04,00,000/- as compensation/damages suffered by complainants for non delivery of possession of floor within reasonable period and for mental torture, harassment and mental strains.
3. Interest @ 15% P.A. on the due amount of Rs. 07,24,635/-
4. Litigation expenses of Rs. 55,000/-.

          OP was noticed, the matter was contested by it, OP had filed its written statement. During the deliberation, it was revealed that the cost of the floor in question is Rs. 20,40,508/-. The argument on the point of maintainability of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdicition heard.

In Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, the complainant has stated that the cost of floor in question is Rs. 20,40,508/-. As the aggregate value of the  alleged Unit against which reliefs  claimed exceeds more than Rs. 20 Lakhs, this District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Para 14 of the judgement Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, reads as under :-

It is evident from a bare perusal of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act and 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 envisage 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 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 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the consumer for the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10 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 pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1 crore.

The Hon’ble National Commission has taken similar view also in the case of Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17 and in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155.  

This view is also adopted by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Complaint Case no. 119/12 Ambica Steel Lts., Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

In the light of  Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016,  the complaint be returned to the complainant along with it Annexures. The complaint be returned to complainant with following particulars in the light of the discussion of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on 27/02/2017.

• Date of return of complaint
• 13/02/2018
• The name of complainant(s)

1.                Mrs. Sunita Badhwar,

W/o Sh. Vijay pal Badhwar

R/o D-13 Second Floor, Tandon Road,

Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi.

                               

2.                 Smt. Bharti Badhwar

W/o Sh. Ravi Pal Badhwar

R/o c-282 millium Apartment

Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi.                     

 

 Brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint.

In Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, the complainant has stated that the cost of the floor in question is Rs. 20,40,508/-  as the aggregate value of the  alleged Unit against which reliefs  claimed exceeds more than Rs. 20 Lakhs, this District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

Keeping in view provision of law and the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC referred to above, we hold that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case and accordingly we order  return of the complaint to file it before the appropriate forum.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 13/02/2018.

 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

  (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                      (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                                     MEMBER