KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 294/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 16.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 743/2012 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
T.V. Wilson, Thaliyachira Puthenpurayil, Veliyanadu P.O., Ernakulam-682 319 represented by his power of attorney holder Paul Varghese.
(By Advs. George Cherian Karippaparambil & S. Reghukumar)
-
RESPONDENT:
V. Maheshkumar, Managing Director, Homex Builders & Developers India Pvt. Ltd., 32/105, H-1, Naroth Road, Thammanam P.O., Vyttila, Ernakulam-682 019.
(By Advs. M/s M.P. Mathews & Joy K.J.)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C. No. 743/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (“the District Commission” for short).
2. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in connection with the construction of a flat. The respondent filed version opposing the contentions of the appellant.
3. In the trial, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked for the appellant. DW1 to DW3 were examined for the respondent. Thereafter, seven points were raised for consideration by the District Commission. The first point was with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission. The District Commission considered the question of pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary point at that stage and dismissed the complaint stating that the District Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, against which this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard.
5. Sec. 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that if the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs, the District Commission lacks jurisdiction.
6. In the present case, the appellant had stated in the complaint that the appellant was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 29,95,341/- from the respondent. However, the appellant limited his claim to Rs. 20,00,000/- with future interest @ 15% per annum.
7. The District Commission had taken a view that the appellant had no authority to limit the claim for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the District Commission. Accordingly, the District Commission found that the District Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. However, the District Commission directed the appellant to prefer the complaint before the commission having pecuniary jurisdiction.
8. The National Commission in Jotica Sehgal vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. reported in III (2017) CPJ 112 (NC) held that the complainant cannot inflate the value of the relief for the purpose of short circuiting the hierarchy of the Consumer Fora. In Muneesh Malthora v. Era Land Marks (India) Ltd., reported in II (2016) CPJ 258 (NC), the National Commission held that the complainant cannot be permitted to inflate the relief for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a higher Forum.
9. In the case on hand, the appellant did not inflate the claim. On the other hand, the appellant limited his claim to Rs. 20,00,000/-. When a person decides to limit his claim to a lesser amount, no authority can say that he cannot limit his claim and he should claim the actual amount. On the other hand, if a person inflates his claim for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a commission as per his choice, that cannot be permitted, as he has absolutely no right vested with him to claim an amount which he is legally not entitled to. In the present case, the appellant limited his claim for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the District Commission. Since the appellant had the right to limit his claim to an amount lesser than the actual amount due to him, the District Commission was not justified in holding that the appellant ought not to have limited his claim to Rs. 20,00,000/- for the purpose of getting the jurisdiction of the District Commission. For the said reason alone, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.
10. That apart, the District Commission had already recorded the evidence and raised seven points for consideration. Thereafter, the District Commission was not justified in answering a single point as a preliminary point without considering the other points. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the provisions of Sec. 12(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it is stated that if the complaint is not dismissed under Sec. 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complaint shall be proceeded with in accordance with law. In this case, the complaint was not dismissed at the preliminary stage as provided under Sec. 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the District Commission proceeded with the complaint and recorded the evidence. In the said circumstances, the District Commission ought to have answered all the points, instead of dismissing the complaint as not maintainable on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. For the said reason also, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed, the order of the District Commission dated 09.03.2016 in C.C. No. 743/2012 stands set aside and the complaint stands restored to the files of the District Commission. The District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. Since this is an old matter, we are of the view that a direction can be issued to the District Commission to issue notice to both the parties before proceeding with the complaint. We order accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
