Haryana

Karnal

CC/420/2017

Kapur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Dogra

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.420 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 18.12.2017

                                                         Date of decision:4.1.2018

 

Kapur Singh son of Shri Tek Singh, resident of House no.479, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2. The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Complex Sector 12, Karnal.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Vinod Dogra Advocate for complainant.

              

 

ORDER:                    

 

                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant  on 18.12.2017 and put up before this Forum on 19.12.2017. The learned counsel for the complainant heard on the point of admission of the complaint. It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has previously filed a complaint bearing no.172 dated 31.7.2015 against the OPs on the same ground which was dismissed by this Forum, vide order dated 16.10.2017 on the ground of limitation. It is further argued that aggrieved by the said order dated 16.10.2017 the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula. It is further argued that the said appeal  was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2017 with liberty to the complainant to file the fresh complaint on the same ground. It is pertinent to mention here that the said appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 30.11.2017 which runs as under:-

        “In view of the statement made by learned counsel for appellant, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint/appeal. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the appellant may seek exemption qua limitation.”

2.             From the order dated 30.11.2017 mentioned above, it is clear that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint/appeal. Therefore, the order passed by this Forum has not been set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission.  However, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Luxmi Works’s case (supra)  the appellant may seek exemption qua limitation for the period which was consumed during the pendency of the case/appeal. The averment of the complainant that his appeal has been disposed of by the order of the Hon’ble State Commission is also wrong whereas the same has been dismissed as withdrawn.

3.             As already stated above, from the above order it is clear that the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by this Forum has not been set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission, therefore, the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by this Forum is in existence. When an order passed by this Forum is in existence and the same has not been set aside, a second complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable before this Forum.

4.             It is pertinent to mention here that even otherwise the matter regarding pecuniary jurisdiction is also involved in this complaint, which has not been previously decided. In this regard it is hereby mentioned that the complainant has placed with the complaint, a copy of allotment letter dated 4.12.2009 from which it is clear that the tentative price of the plot is Rs.25,59,600/-. The said value of the plot is very material for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The total price of the plot is to be taken into consideration to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction. In this regard we can also rely upon the authority cited in 2016 (4) CLT-133 (NC) titled as Parikshit Parasher Versus Universal Buildwell Private Limited & Ors. wherein it is mentioned by the Hon’ble National Commission that the issues relating to the interpretation of section 12(1)( C) of the C.P. Act were referred by a two members bench of this Commission (National Commission), to a larger Bench for its decision. The larger bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has decided the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction in para no.14 of this authority which is as under:-

Issue no.(i)

 It is evident from a bare perusal of section 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 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 hire 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 lakhs, 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.1.00 crores, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing these defects is Rs.5.00 lakhs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.”  

5.             Keeping in view this authority even if the relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs even then for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction the total value of the plot is to be taken into consideration. The total value of the plot in question is more than Rs.20 lakhs, therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction even to entertain and try the complaint.

6.             In view of the above discussions, the complaint is not fit for admission and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission on the ground of maintainability and the pecuniary jurisdiction. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 4.1.2018

                                                                       

                                                                         President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                    (Veena Rani)         (Anil Sharma)

                          Member             Member