Haryana

StateCommission

A/1621/2017

RAM PHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

TARJIT SINGH CHHIKARA

29 May 2018

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1621 of 2017

Date of the Institution:14.12.2017

Date of Decision: 29.05.2018

 

Ramphal S/o Sh.Tek Ram, R/o S-1/902, TDI Kingsbury Flats, Kundli, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

1.      TDI Infrastructure Ltd., UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11,  Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director, Earlier known as M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Limited having Registered office at 9 KG Marg New Delhi.

2.      Canns Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Shop NO.125, S.F., TDI Mall, Kundli, Sonepat-131028, through its Manager/Managing, Director.

                                                                   .…. Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.T.S.Chhikara, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Bhupender Singh, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

            Ramphal, Complainant is in appeal for the enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), vide Order dated 14.11.2017, whereby OPs- TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and Canns Property Management have been directed as under:-

 

            ”Accordingly, it is held that if the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.5911 and Rs.31872/- as Cam Charges to the respondents for the Fy 12-13 and 14-15, in that event, the respondents shall refund the same to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization”.  

 

2.      In brief the complainant purchased a flat from opposite parties (O.Ps.) having basic price of Rs.20,855,99.96/- and buyer’s agreement was executed between them on 17.10.2015.  Total sum of Rs.27,95,744.96  (including basic price, FFC,ECC, PBC, open parking, EDC and interest amount ) was given by him to O.Ps, but, they demanded extra amount of Rs.1,23,518.04, which too was deposited by him besides charging interest amount of Rs.4916/- from him. But, as the park adjoining to S-Tower was not developed properly and the OPs did not provide facilities like CCTV cameras, Fire doors and intercom facilities etc. there was grave deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Aggrieved by that, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.

3.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that no excess payment  were made by the complainant and EDC amount  of Rs.311,576/-  was rightly charged from the complainant. Further, the basic facilities were provided by it and the complainant was not entitled for refund of his amount.  Since, there was no deficiency in service on their part, and objections about pecuniary jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint etc. were also raised, Ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 14.11.2017 by granting the aforesaid relief.

 

4.      Considering the relief awarded by the learned District Forum as inadequate, the complainant has come up in Appeal for the enhancement of the same, by modification of the impugned Order. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that since the compensation claimed was much less then Rs.20 lacs, so, the District Forum was having jurisdiction to try this complaint.  

6.      These arguments are of no avail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs stated that since the flat in question of Rs.23,50,425/- purchased by him, so he was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint. As per decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016 titled Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., dated 07.10.2016, the relief claimed as well as value of the property were to be taken into consideration. This question of pecuniary jurisdiction has also been decided in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) in reference dated 11.08.2016, which is as under:-

“It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer forum.”

Therefore, according to the law settled in the binding precedents, the value of flat alongwith interest etc. is to be taken into consideration and not only the amount sought to be refunded.

 

7.      This view was also followed by Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled “Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited” decided on 07.10.2016. For ready reference relevant Para No.3 of this judgment is also reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer”.

 

8.      When the learned District Forum was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute, it was not supposed to go into merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Babu and others Versus Lajpat Rai Sharma and others, 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 872; Sushil Kumar Mehta Versus Gobind Ram Bohra, 1990 (1) RCR(Rent) 423; Gannmani Ansuya and Ors. Versus Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Ors., 2007(3) RCR(Civil) 381 and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Versus Director, Health Services, Haryana and others; (2013) 10 SCC 136 as also  by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.

9.      Consequently, we allow the appeal, Set aside the Order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned District Forum by which the Complaint was partly allowed, and dismiss  the Complaint also. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

May 29th, 2018

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

    

S.K.