Haryana

StateCommission

CC/189/2015

RAJINDER GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZION PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIREN JAIN

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      Complaint Case No.189 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:23.10.2015

                                      Date of Decision: 23.11.2015

 

Rajinder Gupta S/o late Sh. Hari Chand, resident of 483, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, Punjab.

                                                                         …Complainant                         

Versus

 

M/s Zion Promoters & Developers Private Ltd., a company having its corporate office at K-108, Atrium (Hill View), Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad (Haryana), Pin-121003, and Registered office at HR-77/4, Pul Pehladpur, Badarpur, New Delhi, Pin-110044, through its Directors.

                                                                    …Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:     Mr.Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the complainant.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that One Mehtab Seth S/o Shri Rajan Seth was allotted flat at the rate of Rs.2375/- per Sq. feet  by opposite party (O.P.) vide agreement dated 23.06.2007 for a consideration of Rs.39,54,375/-. In addition thereto, EDC charges at the rate of Rs.120/- per Sq. feet were also demanded. It was agreed that if possession would not be delivered within 36 months from the commencement of the construction, the O.P. will pay compensation to him @ 5/- per sq. ft. for every month of delay untill handing over the possession. As the possession is not delivered this amount comes to Rs.5,32,800/-. One Gurdeep Singh purchased flat in this very project which was transferred to him (complainant) at the rate of Rs.1350/- per Sq. feet which is much less then, the previous price. In this way O.P. charged Rs.17,6,625/- more from him qua first flat and OP be direct to refund the same also alongwith penalty mentioned above.

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      Complainant purchased the flat on his own will from IIIrd person. Nobody forced him to pay extra or less price at the time of purchase of the flat. So, he cannot ask to refund the price paid at the time of purchase of previous flat. Due to any circumstance a seller can reduce the price of it article. It is commonly seen that the articles are sold with great discount at the time sales. If anyone has purchased any article previously it does not mean that he has been cheated. So, this amount cannot be taken into consideration for pecuniary jurisdiction.  Value of flat also cannot be taken into consideration for pecuniary jurisdiction as discussed by this Commission in Complaint No.19 of 2014 titled as Vinita Goyal and another Vs.M/s Unitech Limited and another decided on 21.02.2014, wherein it was opined as under:-

 

“7.               The Act was enacted with a view to providing better protection to the consumers. As is apparent, the word consumer denotes a person who buys the goods or avails the services yet the Act includes within its ambit the user of goods or services as well. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the term ‘consumer’ which is set out as under:-

 

Section 2(d) “consumer” means any person who—

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes and beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose,.

8.                A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that the consumer is a person who either buys the goods or avails or hires the services and also a person who is user of such goods or services but such use is made with the approval of the first mentioned person. Needless to say, goods or services for commercial purpose or for resale have been excluded from the purview of the Act. Now what emerges from the provision is that a person is consumer either of goods or of services.

9.                Further 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.

10.              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.

11.              Now, dealing with the question formulated above, that is, whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or it was required to be filed before the District Consumer Forum. At the threshold, the complainant has to demonstrate whether he has come up before this Commission 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.

12.              In the instant case, the complainants are complaining of deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties but when the jurisdictional point is raised the complainants put forth the price of flat, that is, Rs.17,93,750/- for making out jurisdiction of this Commission. It is to be noticed that the sum of Rs.17,93,750/- is the price of flat. The flat 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;

13.              In view of above, the irresistible conclusion  is that the complainants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by counting the price of flat as price of service. For assessing the value of service, the price of flat cannot be counted because the flat is an immoveable property. That apart, the complainants have failed to show how the value of services rendered by the opposite parties is more than rupees twenty lakhs.

14.              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 complainant. 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.

15.              The valuation of the relief claimed in the complaint is manifestly and grossly inflated and there is every reason to believe that it has been purposely done to enable the complaint to institute the case before the State Commission.

16.              As regards the compensation, the same is required to be assessed in reference to the loss and injury suffered by the complainant. The complainants have failed to show as to how the value of the service and compensation exceeds rupees twenty lakhs. “

 

4.      Taking into consideration every aspect, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  The jurisdiction is vested with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Therefore, complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate Forum as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in  Meenu Aggarwal Vs. JMD Promoters Ltd. and Anr. II (2012) CPJ 18 (NC). 

 

November 23^rd,          Urvashi Agnihotri    R.K. Bishnoi

2015                        Member                      Judicial Member

                                    Addl. Bench               Addl. Bench.