DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.922 of 2017
Date of institution: 31.10.2017 Date of decision : 05.10.2018
Balwinder Singh Thind son of Jagir Singh Thind, resident of House No.951, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
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 Raghubir Singh and Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
OP ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
OP invited applications for becoming member of its society, on which complainant by paying Rs.10,000/- towards membership fee, became its member. OP assured to provide residential plots in Sectors 111-112 of Mohali to its members. Requisite permissions/approvals from the competent authorities have not been obtained, even though advertisements through newspapers given to general public with assurance that possession will be handed over physically not later than two years of registration/requisition. Total cost of the plot was Rs.19,20,000/- and complainant deposited total sum of Rs.16,75,000/-, details of which given in tabular form as under:
Sr.No. | Date | Receipt No. | Amount | Cumulative total |
1. | 01.09.2011 | 3531 | 10,000.00 | - |
2. | 03.08.2012 | 9424 | 1,12,500.00 | 1,22,500.00 |
3. | 11.05.2012 | 8049 | 4,80,000.00 | 6,02,500.00 |
4. | 03.08.2012 | 9425 | 4,80,000.00 | 10,82,500.00 |
5. | 24.11.2014 | 14944 | 2,36,000.00 | 13,18,500.00 |
6. | 01.01.2015 | 14982 | 2,58,000.00 | 15,76,500.00 |
7. | 28.03.2015 | 13028 | 48,500.00 | 16,25,000.00 |
8. | 02.06.2015 | 14676 | 50,000.00 | 16,75,000.00 |
In the receipt dated 01.09.2011 it was specifically mentioned that if complainant does not want to continue even after paying some of the installments, then he will be refunded the entire amount with prevailing interest rate from the date of registration. OP society not entitled to receive more than 25% of total amount of plot without entering into agreement, but it violated these rules. OP society unable to handover possession for want of requisite approvals/permissions from competent authorities like GMADA and as such by pleading adoption of unfair trade practice by OP, prayer made for directing OP to refund received amount of Rs.16,75,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of deposits till realisation. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed.
2. OP is ex-parte in this case.
3. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Main question involved in this case in the first instance is as to whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction or not. After going through prayed reliefs, it is made out that refund of the deposited amount of Rs.16,75,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of deposits till realisation sought. If interest @ 12% from the date of last deposit namely 02.06.2015 taken into consideration, then this means that interest for period from 02.06.2015 to 21.06.2017 (date before filing of complaint) will be Rs.4,02,000/- because interest @ 12% per annum of Rs.16,75,000/- comes to Rs.2,01,000/- per annum. However, payments made during period from 01.09.2011 to 02.06.2015 of different amounts and as such it is obvious that in case interest for two years alone calculated, then total sought for relief will be of amount of Rs.16,75,000/- + Rs.4,02,000/- = Rs.20,77,000/-. By adding amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-, the figure will go beyond pecuniary limit jurisdiction of Rs.20.00 lakhs definitely. Interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of deposits namely 01.09.2011 to 02.06.2015, if added, then this figure will go beyond limit of Rs.24.00 lakhs.
6. As per law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2016(4) CPR 83 for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value of cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered. Interest amount has to be taken into consideration alongwith compensation, if any, claimed for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. That view reiterated again by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.1364 of 2017 titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others Vs. Lalitha Saini, decided on 21.08.2017. Rather in the later mentioned case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., it has been specifically pointed out that decision given by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors (supra) has to be followed by all the Fora below and also by the Benches of Hon’ble National Commission until different view happens to be of larger Bench. Specific reference to Para No.9 of case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., (ibid) can be made in this respect. In view of this legal position, there is no escape from the conclusion that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Being so, complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint returned for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Commission because this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 05, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
