Complainants through Lrd. Adv. Kataria,
Opponents through Adv. Gujrathi
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
** J U D G M E N T **
(07/01/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against Builder and Developer under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainants are the residents of Chennai, Tamilnadu, They have entered into an agreement with the opponent builder and developer for purchasing flat at village Sus within the limits of Pune District Council. The complainants have paid huge consideration amount as and when demanded by the opponents. The agreement to sale was executed on 28/5/2009. Complainants after execution of the agreement, approached State Bank of India for loan of Rs.42,21,000/- They are paying EMI of Rs. 45,649/-. The opponents failed and neglected to hand over the possession of the flat as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. There is delay of more than 8 months as per scheduled time. The complainants have prayed for possession of the flat as well as compensation for delay.
2] The opponents appeared before the Forum and filed application stating that the cost of the flat is Rs. 58,00,000/- i.e. more than 20 lacs. Hence, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. They have prayed for returning of the complaint.
3] That application is resisted by the complainant by filing say. According to the complainant, the claim is within jurisdiction of this Forum, as complainants have claimed deficiency in service and valuation of deficiency in service is not 58 lacs. The complainants have prayed for dismissal of the application of the opponent.
4] After considering the pleadings and scrutinizing the documents, which are produced on the record by both the parties, and hearing arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint? | In the negative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is returned to the complainants for presenting it before the proper Forum. |
REASONS :-
4] The undisputed fact in between the parties is that the complainants have entered into an agreement as regards purchasing flat from the opponent on 28/5/2009. The complainants have claimed possession of the flat as well as compensation on various grounds. It is also not in much dispute that the cost of the flat is near about 58 lacs. As the complainants have demanded the possession of the flat, while determining the valuation, the value of the flat should be considered. The claim of the complainant is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum; hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The reliance can be placed upon the Judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in complaint No. 08/159 between “Mr. Jayesh G. Shah v/s. M/s. Anamika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Co.: decided on 6/1/2012. That complaint was also relating to the deficiency in service on the part of the developer and builder for not handing over possession of the flat agreed to be purchased by the complainant. The complainant had valued that flat for Rs.1 Crore and asked further compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for mental agony and
torture and also asked compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per month for delayed possession from the date of filing of complaint till possession is received. In that complaint, it has been observed that the valuation of the flat as well as compensation for deficiency of service is more than one crore, then the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint and the complaint was returned to the complainant for presenting the same before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
5] As regards the pecuniary jurisdiction reliance can also be placed upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra reported in 2004(1) Bom. C.R. 551 between Krishna D. Singh vs. Pavan T. Punjabi & Ors. In that proceeding it has been observed that-
“The jurisdiction of Forum has to be determined
on the basis of value of the subject matter of
dispute and not by the result of the decree or award.
For the purpose of valuation of dispute, reliefs
claimed have to be considered in the context of
averment in the complaint.”
In that proceeding the value of the flat was Rs.7,00,000/- and it was directed that the complaint should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try.
6] In the same context reliance can be placed upon the ruling of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of Kishori Lal Bablani v/s. Aditya Enterprises & Ors. reported in (2012) CPJ 682 (NC). In that ruling it has been observed that the valuation of the flat which has been shown by the complainant is Rs.40,70,000/-, hence the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint and it should be presented before the State Commission and that complaint was returned to the complainant for presenting the same before the proper Forum.
7] In the light of the observations of the above rulings, it is crystal clear that the claim of the complainant is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, this Forum held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. This Forum answer accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER**
1. The complaint is returned to the complainant
for presenting the same before appropriate
Forum within 6 weeks from the date of order.
2. In the peculiar circumstances, there is no order
as to the cost.
3. Copies of this order be furnished to the parties
free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date- 07/Jan./2014
