Order No. 02 / Dated 09/07/2019.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainants is present.
Today is fixed for admission hearing.
Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainants. Perused the consumer complaint coupled with its annexure thereto. On perusal of the Agreement for Sale dated 04/04/2014 it appears that the value of the subject flat is Rs.28,61,600/- and car parking space is Rs.2,50,000/-. Moreover, the complainants have claimed Rs.4,80,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost. Therefore, the value of the subject flat, car parking space, compensation and litigation cost comes to Rs.36,41,600/-.
For appreciation of the matter, it would be pertinent to have a look to the provisions of section 11 (1) of the Act which provides –
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum. –
- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed “does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs”.
Needless to say, the jurisdiction means the authority of a Court/Forum to administer justice subject to the limitations imposed by law, which are three-fold, viz. – (a) as to subject matter; (b) as to territorial jurisdiction and (c) as to pecuniary jurisdiction. If any Court or Forum passes any order without any competence, the said order would be a nullity. It is well settled that the question of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction has to be ascertained at the initial stage or in the nascent phase of the proceeding. However, in a decision reported in (2005) 7 SCC 791 (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi – vs. – D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr.) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the question of pecuniary jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction has to be dealt with before the Court/Forum where the suit/complaint has been instituted and not in an appellate stage. Therefore, it is incumbent upon a Forum constituted under the Act to see at the time of admission of complaint that the provisions contained in Section 11or Section 17or Section 21 of the Act are strictly followed so that a real consumer may not suffer on technical fault at the end of the day.
The Act does not specifically lay down as to how a complaint is to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction. However, the Hon’ble National Commission is consistent with the view that it is the total value of the goods and / or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In a decision reported in 1996 (2) CPR 26 (M/S Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd Vs Bank of Madura Ltd and Anr.) a larger Bench of Hon’ble National Commission presided by Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi has observed –
‘in our view, where a claim of compensation is pleaded in a Consumer Complaint, then the total value of the goods and / or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction’.
In a decision dated 12.03.2012 in RP/2679/2011 (P.S. Srijan Enclave and Ors Vs Sanjeev Bhargav) the National Commission has observed thus:
“it is settled Law that determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint.”
Recently, in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. – Vs. – Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in I (2017) CPJ 1, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission while discussing on the point has observed thus-
“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 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 deficiencies in the goods purchased or the servicers 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 hired 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 ....”. Giving instance to the same it has been stated – ‘if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs. 5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of services itself being more than Rs. 1.00 crore’.
Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that it is the value of goods or services and compensation claimed which determines pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The District Forum enjoys a pecuniary jurisdiction not exceeding Rs.20,00,000/-. In the instant case, the value of the subject flat, car parking space, compensation and litigation cost claimed by the complainants comes to Rs.36,41,600/-, which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, we are not inclined to admit the instant consumer complaint.
Hence,
ORDERD
That the consumer complaint is not admitted and dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
However, this order will not debar the complainants to approach their grievance before the appropriate Forum, if so desire.
In view of the above observation, Misc. Application is not tenable and rejected.
Thus, MA being No. 281 of 2019 is disposed of.
