DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2018
Date of institution: 07.03.2018 Date of decision : 15.03.2018
Sunita Gupta d/o Umesh Chander, r/o H.No.23, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh, presently residing at H.No.402, Darpan City, Gate No.4, Kharar, District Mohali..
…….Complainant
Vs
The Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Mohali, Site Office, Sector 111-112, Mohali through its President Navjeet Singh.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Kulwinder Singh counsel for complainant.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Arguments heard at admission stage.
Complainant got a plot for own use from OP by paying total amount of Rs.12,55,000/- on different dates ranging from 28.05.2012 to 10.01.2015. Agreement with complainant for plot No.477 instead of Plot No.G-114 was arrived at on 05.05.2015. Possession has not been handed over to complainant till date. Rather complainant got knowledge as if promoter license granted to OP has been cancelled by authorities concerned. On the basis of complaint with SSP, Mohali, FIR No.294 dated 14.12.2017 was lodged against President of OP Society. Total cost of the plot excluding EDC and IDC charges alleged to be Rs.13.00 lakhs. GMADA issued caution to the general public through public notice for not indulging in purchase of plots/flats from OP society and as such refund of paid amount of Rs.12,55,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till realisation claimed. Besides compensation for mental agony and financial loss of Rs.2.00 lakhs, but litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/- more claimed.
2. Counsel for complainant contends that value of the total claimed relief is below Rs.20.00 lakhs and as such this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction. That submission of counsel for complainant has no force because after going through ratio of case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. bearing Consumer Case No.97 of 2016 decided on 07.10.2016 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it is made out that it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. Further it is laid down in the above cited case while opining on issue No.2 that interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. While recording finding on issue No.3, Hon’ble National Commission in the above cited case further held that consideration paid or agreed to be paid by consumer at the time of purchase of goods or hiring or availing of service, as the case may be, is to be considered, alongwith compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. So from all this it is made out that it is not only the consideration paid or agreed to be paid, but even the amount of claimed compensation and the amount of interest together has to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. When aggregate of the amounts paid by complainant in this case alongwith the amount of claimed interest and compensation/cost taken into consideration, then it is made out that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction because the total value of the claimed reliefs goes beyond the pecuniary limit jurisdiction of this Forum of Rs.20.00 lakhs.
3. After going through the relief clause, it is made out that refund of the paid amount of Rs.12,55,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation claimed alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-. Aggregate of these amounts except the amount of interest comes to Rs.15,10,000/-. As per claim of complainant put forth in Para No.9, total amount of Rs.12,55,000/- in all has been paid upto 10.01.2015. If the interest @ 12% calculated on this amount of Rs.12,55,000/- w.e.f. 10.01.2015 till filing of this complaint on 12.03.2018, this amount comes to Rs.4,76,800/-. However, if the interest on the deposited amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs on 03.10.2012 (mentioned in Para No.8 of complaint) calculated w.e.f. 03.10.2012 to 10.01.2015 then same comes to Rs.1,04,000/- for period of two years and 2 months ranging from 03.10.2012 to 03.01.2015. So total interest on these amounts comes to Rs.5,80,800/-. By adding this amount to Rs.15,10,000/-, the claimed amount of principal amount and compensation as well as litigation costs, total comes to Rs.20,90,800/-. However, in case further interest on the paid amount of Rs.3,25,000/- w.e.f. date of payment as 28.05.2012 to 10.01.2015 taken into consideration, then the same comes to Rs.97,500/-. Further by adding interest on the paid amount of Rs.3,25,000/- from 17.12.2013 till 17.12.2014, same will come to Rs.78,000/- more. So aggregate of reliefs claimed goes beyond the limit of Rs.21,68,000/-. However, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where aggregate of claimed reliefs is upto extent of Rs.20.00 lakhs. So virtually this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and as such complaint ordered to be returned to complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum/Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh.
4. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum/ Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 15, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
