DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/138/2015
No. DF/ Central/
Vijoy Dhwoj Prasad
S/o Lt. Sh. Bishwshwar Jha
R/o E-92, Ground Floor, Sector-72,
Noida-201301(UP)
Pronay Dhwoj
S/o Sh. Vijoy Dhwoj Prasad
R/o E-92, Ground Floor, Sector-72,
Noida-201301(UP)
…..COMPLAINANTS
VERSUS
Vinod Kumar Berry
R/o 83-84, Double Storey,
New Rajander Nagar, New Delhi-110060
Sameer Berry
R/o 83-84, Double Storey,
New Rajander Nagar, New Delhi-110060
M/s Paramount Tower Pvt. Ltd.
Having Off. : 208, Second Floor,
Sikka Mansion, LSC, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110044
Also at: Plot No. GH-06,
Sector-137, Expressway,
Noida-201301 …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended alleging therein that Sh. Vinod Kumar Berry and Sameer Beery (in short OP1 and OP2) jointly booked a flat bearing unit no. 2001 (Super Area 1045 sq. ft.) 20th Floor, Tower Jasmine at Plot GH-06, Sector-137, Expressway, Noida in one of the projects of M/s Paramount Floraville (in short OP3) vide allotment letter dated 30.12.2011. Complainant no. 1and 2 agreed to buy the aforesaid unit from OP1 and OP2 for Rs. 43,00,000/-. OP1 and OP2 assured the complainants that OP3 has agreed to give NOC for the sale of aforesaid flat and will make endorsement on the allotment letter dated 30.12.2011in favour of the complainants, which is a normal process. In order to purchase the aforesaid unit, the complainants approached Andhra Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Andhra bank agreed to sanction loan of Rs. 24,00,000/- vide its sanction letter dated 17.12.2014. Pre-condition for grant of loan was that OP1 and OP2 will arrange NOC from OP3. In a meeting dated 26.12.2014 in the office of OP3, representative of OP3 refused to issue any NOC in favour of the complainant and stated that the aforesaid flat should be surrendered in favour of OP3 and the same will be re-allotted to the complainants on fresh terms. The complainants have prayed that direction be issued to the OPs to execute and register a sale deed for the unit in question or to direct OP1 and OP2, to refund the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 24% per annum from January, 2015 till payment and to direct OP1 and OP2 and/or OP3 to hand over the vacant possession of the said unit in favour of the complainant and further to direct OP3 not to give possession of the aforesaid unit to the OP1 and OP2 or to execute a sale deed in favour of OP1 and OP2 and also to direct OPs to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards legal litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the instant complaint was issued to the OPs who appeared and filed reply. We have heard Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Das, counsel for complainants and Sh. Faizain Nazin, counsel for OPs.
3. Learned counsel for Ops submit that the instant complainant is not maintainable as neither the complaints are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor this forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant claim.
4. Admittedly, the complainants agreed to buy the unit in question from OP1 and OP2 for an amount of Rs. 43,00,000/- which amount is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.
5. As per Section 11 (i) of the Act the District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where the value of goods and services and the compensation claimed does not exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs.
6. Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016 observed that value of goods & services and value of relief claimed is to be seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of alleged deficiency.
7. The same question again came up before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum. The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.
8. In another case titled Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) was again referred and following relevant part of the said judgment was quoted:
“Reference order dated 11.8.2016 Issue No. (i) 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 the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services 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. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakh, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, 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 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”
10. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainant had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition. The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles. Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant. The complainant hence filed a Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles. The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that :
“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh, the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-. Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.
11. A two member bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in RP 3496/2017 in Gurmukh Singh v/s Greater Mohali Area while hearing against order dated 11.10.2017 in appeal no. 464/17 of State Commission, Punjab held that it is the total value of goods and services not partial amount deposited by the allotee which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction. Since, the total price of the booked unit was Rs. 37,00,000/-, it was observed that District Forum did not have pecuniary Jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In the said judgment, the two member bench had discussed the judgment of Ambrish Shukla.
12. In Reliance Consumer Finance Vs Randhir Singh First Appeal No. 431 of 2013 the Hon’ble SCDRC , Chandigarh vide order dated 24.12.2013 it was observed that it is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Fora, at any stage of the proceedings, is duty bound to decide of its own, the legal questions as to whether the complainant within the definition of a Consumer ; whether it had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; whether the complaint involved the consumer dispute; and whether the consumer complaint was maintainable.
13. The instant complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2018.
