National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gurdeep Singh H. Puruswani vs Runwal Constructions on 10 September, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 579 OF 2015 1. GURDEEP SINGH H. PURUSWANI ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. RUNWAL CONSTRUCTIONS ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Anand Patvardhan, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Dated : 10 Sep 2015 ORDER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
Gurdeep Singh H Puruswani and Mrs. Inderjeet kaur Puruswani have filed the instant consumer complaint against the opposite party Runwal Constructions alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of a flat booked by the complainants in the project " Runwal Infinity" located at L B S Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai undertaken by the opposite party. The complainant has sought the following reliefs:
"a. The opposite party and all it's partners be jointly and severally be held guilty of unfair trade practices and deficient in service by this Hon'ble Commission on account of the cancellation letter which needs to be annulled and quashed.
b. The Opposite Party and all it's partners be jointly and severally be directed to execute and register the agreement and hand over the possession of the flat.
c. The Opposite Party and all it's partners be jointly and severally be directed to complete the Construction of the building and after procuring all permissions and licences including Occupancy Certificate to hand over possession of the flat by taking the balance consideration which the Complainants are ready and willing to pay.
d. The opposite Party and its directors be jointly and severally ordered and be directed to pay interest @ 21% on the delay in handing over possession on the amount paid from the agreed date of possession till handing over possession Or in the alternative e. The Opposite Party and it's directors be jointly and severally ordered and directed to provide a flat in or around the same vicinity in one of its constructed buildings at the same rate, same carpet area, same floor and with same amenities at which the complainants purchased the present flat, the present market value of which is Rs.1 crore 40 lacs.
f. The opposite party be charged a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the inconvenience caused to the complainant and the mental harassment caused.
g. The opposite party be charged a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the cost of this complaint."
2. On perusal of the complaint, prima facie it appears that instant consumer complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Commission. We have, therefore, heard the arguments on pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. Before adverting to the submissions of learned counsel for the complainants, it would be useful to have a look on Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act), which deals with the original jurisdiction of the National Commission to entertain the complaints. Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act, reads as under:
"21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. -- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore. "
4. On reading of the above it is clear that National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed taken together exceeds rupees one crore.
5. In the instant case, main plea of the complainant is quashing of the letter cancelling the allotment, delivery of possession of flat in all respects besides 21% interest on the deposits made by the complainant for the delay in handing over the possession.
6. Admittedly, the agreed value of flat is Rs.24,87,500/-. Therefore, it is clear that value of the service availed of by the complainants is Rs.24,87,500/-. Perusal of para 8 of the complaint would show that complainant during the period 28.08.2006 to 09.01.2008 has paid a sum of Rs.14,92,500/- to the opposite party on different dates. The complainants have claimed 21% interest on the amount paid by him on the delay. Even if the interest on 14,92,500 is calculated w.e.f. 28.08.2006, i.e. payment of first cheque of Rs.3,50,000/-, the interest till date would amount to Rs.28,20,000/- (approx.). Thus, the sum total of the value of service and interest claimed amounts to Rs.53,07,500/- approximately ( i.e. Rs.24,87,500 + Rs.28,20,000) The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for inconvenience caused and harassment. Even if we add that amount for the purpose of computing pecuniary jurisdiction, the total value of the claim amounts to Rs.63,07,500/-, which is much below the limit of Rs.1.00 crore from which the jurisdiction of National Commission starts.
7. Shri Anand Patwardhan, Advocate for the complainant has contended that as per the allegations in the complaint, the present market value of similar flat in the same area is not less than Rs.1,40,00,000/-. It is contended that since the complainant is seeking possession of the flat based upon its market value which more than rupees one crore, the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of National Commission. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in bunch of consumer complaints including Consumer Case No.427 of 2014 titled as Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 08.06.2015.
8. We do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. The present market value of the subject flat in view of the clear provision of Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act has no relevance in this case. As per the above noted provision, the value of the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction comprises of value of goods or services and the compensation, which as per the discussion above comes to somewhere Rs.63,07,500/-. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench relied upon by the complainants is of no avail to them. The Coordinate Bench in para 16 of the judgment has dealt with the issue pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. Relevant observations of Coordinate Bench are reproduced as under:
16. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the sale consideration paid by the complainants was less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- the complaint is maintainable before the concerned State Commission and not before this Commission. Again, I find no merit in the contention. The case of the complainants is that current market value of such apartments is not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. ft. calculated accordingly the current market value of the individual flats booked by the complainants comes to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in every complaint. One of the prayers made in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to handover possession of the flat to the complainants. For the purpose of this relief, the current market value of the flat would be the pecuniary value of the service and since the said value is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in each case, it cannot be disputed that only this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
9. On reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the above said observation of the coordinate bench have been passed without taking into consideration Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act which provides for the formula for computing the value of the pecuniary jurisdiction. It appears that the above noted provisions of the Act was not brought to the notice of the learned Bench. Therefore, in our considered view, the findings of the coordinate Bench being dehors Section 21 (a) (i) is of no help to the complainant.
10. In view of the discussion above, the value of the service allegedly availed by the complainant and the compensation claimed in the complaint is much less than Rs.1.00 crore. Therefore, this Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complaint is, therefore, rejected with the observation that complainants shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before State Commission Mumbai having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER