Haryana

StateCommission

CC/171/2016

SATPAUL GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERAL BILDWELL PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUKAAM GUPTA

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No  : 171 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:              24.06.2016

                                                Date of Decision :                29.07.2016

 

 

 

1.      Sat Paul Garg son of Ramji Dass, resident of 19-E, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

2.      Renu Jain wife of Sat Paul Garg, resident of 19-E, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      Universal Buildwell Private Limited, Registered Office at 102, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Katurba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001 through its authorized signatory.

 

2.      Universal Buildwell Private Limited, Universal Trader Tower, 8^th Floor, Sector 49, Gurgaon, Sohna Road, Gurgaon -122101 through Managing Director.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                            

Present:               Shri Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for complainants.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          For the limited purpose of adjudicating upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the present complaint, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts.

2.      Sat Paul Garg and his wife Renu Jain-complainants booked office space with Universal Buildwell Private Limited (for short, ‘Builder’). The basic sale consideration of the office space was Rs.30,50,000/-. The complainants paid Rs.11,67,940/- to the builder. As per the Office Space/Shop Buyer’s Agreement, the possession of the office space was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement but the builder failed to do so.

3.      By filing the present complaint, complainants sought direction to the builder:-

          (i)      To refund the amount of Rs.11,67,940/- alongwith 18% interest per annum from the date of respective deposits till actual payments and opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.6,50,000/- as compernsation and Rs.2,50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

          (ii)      To provide all necessary documents to show that their project is cleared from all concerned departments and opposite parties have got necessary approved sanction for construction and they are in a position to construct and give physical possession of flats to allottees.  

 

4.      The first and foremost question arising for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the complaint in hand is maintainable before this Commission or it was required to be filed before the District Consumer Forum?

5.      Section 17 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of this Commission.  For facilitation, the same is reproduced as under:-

17. “Jurisdiction of the State Commission:-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

1. to entertain-

1. complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and
2. appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

(b)     to call for the records and passed appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in excercise on its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2)     A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)     the cause of action , wholly or in part, arises.

 

6.      A plain reading of Section 17 of the Act suggests that there is a fair scheme in the Act with regard to hierarchy of the consumer forums established under the Act. In respect of the goods or services and the compensation, the value of which does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs, the complaint shall lie before the District Forum whereas where the value of such goods or services and the compensation exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore, the complaint lies before the State Commission and where the value of the goods or services and compensation is exceeding rupees one crore, the complaint is maintainable before the National Commission. The legislators were conscious of the fact that the Act deals with either the defect of goods or deficiency in service. So, ordinarily, where the value of goods which are for self consumption and not for resale or commercial purpose, is less than rupees twenty lakhs, the legislators wanted to confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum at the first instance but where the value of such goods or services exceeds such limit, the alternative jurisdictions were conferred.

7.      Whether the complaint is maintainable before the District Consumer Forum or not, the complainant has to demonstrate whether he has filed the complaint before the District Forum complaining of defect in goods or deficiency in service. If the grievance pertains to defect of goods, then the value thereof plus compensation shall govern the jurisdiction but if it is with regard to deficiency in service, the complainant has to assess the deficiency in service availed by him.

8.      In the instant case, the complainants are seeking refund of Rs.11,67,940/- deposited by them alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The price of the office space is not be taken into consideration because the office space does not fall within the definition of ‘goods’.  Section 2(i) of the Act states that ‘goods’ means goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which defines ‘goods’ is reproduced as under:-

“goods” means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale;

 

9.      In view of above, the irresistible conclusion is for assessing the value of service, the price of office space cannot be counted because the office space is an immoveable property. So far as seeking compensation for harassment, litigation expenses etc is concerned, it is repeated experience of the redressal agencies that the litigants inflate and enhance their claim of compensation to suit the jurisdiction, which they may choose to avail. It is obviously the bounden duty of the redressal agencies themselves to scrutinize the reasonableness of the monetary claim raised by the complainants. It is well settled principle of law that the computation alone does not conclusively govern the pecuniary jurisdiction of the redressal agencies under the Act.

10.    In Sudhakar Vinayak Sapre versus M/s Sanmitra Housing of Bajaj Nagar, II(1992) CPJ 673, Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay, held as under:-

“2. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act defines the jurisdiction of District Forum. Under the said provision, it is provided that the valuation of the complaint has to be determined on the basis of the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any claimed (italicised is ours). In other words, it means that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction has to be computed on the basis of the amount claimed. The flat in question is certainly not a goods. The complaint is essentially about the deficiency in the service where the claim is for Rs. 24,000/- only in addition to the possession of flat. For purposes of possession, no valuation is required to be computed as this is not a Civil Court.…”

11.    In view of the above, this Commission holds that the present complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, the same is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the complainants shall have liberty to seek their grievances before the proper forum or civil court, as per law.  They can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – 1995(3) SCC 583.

 

 

 

Announced 29.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK