State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Sonal Khurana vs 1. M/S Taneja Developers & ... on 4 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,
CHANDIGARH
First Appeal
No.
:
215 of 2012
Date of Institution
:
21.06.2012
Date of Decision
:
04.10.2012
Sh. Sonal Khurana son of Sh. J. S. Khurana resident of
House No.361/1-B, Ram Nagar, Behind D.A.V College, Ambala City.
Appellant/Complainant.
VERSUS
M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Company
Limited, Regd. Office 9, Kastoorba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 through
its Managing Director.
The Managing Director, M/s Taneja Developers &
Infrastructures Company Limited, SCO No.1098-1099, First Floor, Sector
22-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal
under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the respondents.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur approached the complainant and represented that the Opposite Parties were going to construct apartments to be named as Wellington Heights at TDI City, Phase-I I Sector 117-118, SAS Nagar, Mohali. They assured the complainant that the said tower would be constructed very soon. They told the complainant that they had already booked a flat, in the said apartment. They expressed their desire to sell their rights to the complainant, to which he agreed and became ready to purchase their rights in the said Tower. It was stated that the complainant submitted an application with all the required documents, to the Opposite Parties, and the same was accepted. It was further stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur, against the amount already paid by them to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur executed a Receipt/Agreement to Sell dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure C-14) to that effect. It was further stated that on 07.09.2010, the Opposite Parties allotted a flat bearing No.A-0404, Floor No.4, Tower-A, Type & Area 2 BHK to the complainant, who deposited another sum of Rs.5,25,188/- vide receipts (Annexures C-2 to C-5) at different intervals. It was further stated that at the time of booking the flat, the Opposite Parties had assured that they would construct the flats within 3 years, but the same were not completed till the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum, and, as such, they failed to handover physical possession of the flat in question. It was further stated that the complainant served a legal notice dated 12.02.2011 upon the Opposite Parties, requesting them to handover physical possession of the flat, in question, but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulging into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Party to handover the physical possession of the flat, in question, pay interest @24% per annum on Rs.8,25,188/- for the period from 06.10.005 to 07.09.2010, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs of the complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties, put in appearance, and filed their written version, wherein, a specific preliminary objection was raised that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, as the price of the residential flat, allotted to the complainant, was Rs.21,08,960/-, which exceeded Rs.20 Lacs. On merits, it was admitted that Flat No.4, Tower A, Type & Area 2 BHK was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 07.09.2010. It was stated that an agreement dated 06.08.2010 was also executed between the parties. Clause 6.1 of the said agreement contemplated completion of construction of the building/apartments within a period of 3 years, from the date of execution of the same, subject to force majeure and all just exceptions, as contained in the said clause, and, therefore, the complaint deserved dismissal being premature. It was further stated that until 03.11.2010, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.8,18,020/- towards the sale consideration of the flat, in question, and thereafter, she had not made any further payment. It was further stated that the construction work at the site was in full swing and the possession of the flat would be delivered to the complainant as per Clause 6.1 of the agreement dated 06.08.2010, according to which, the entitlement of possession arose after 05.08.2013 only. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, after discussing the merits of the case, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. The respondents/Opposite Parties, primarily, challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, on the ground, that the price of the residential flat, allotted to the complainant, was Rs.21,08,960/-, whereas it (District Forum) had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint relating to the goods or services claimed, the aggregate value whereof did not exceed Rs.20 Lacs. He further submitted that the District Forum wrongly adjudicated the case, as it was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same.
9. Admittedly, the price of the residential flat allotted to the complainant is Rs.21,08,960/-. Section 11(1) of the Act mandates that the District Forum can entertain complaints, where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans alias Ramesh Kumar Vs. Goyal Eye Institute and others, Consumer Complaint No.135 of 2011, decided on 30.03.2012, held that a Consumer Fora whether it is District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, must consider the question, whether the complaint so filed, before it, is within its pecuniary jurisdiction, besides satisfying itself about the maintainability of the complaint, on other parameters.
10. In the present case, the appellant/complainant had sought one of the reliefs of handing over of physical possession of the flat, in question, costing Rs.21,08,960/-. Though the complaint with regard to the relief of possession, on the date it was filed, was pre-mature, yet the District Forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, could not entertain and decide the same. Since the District Forum lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction, it was required of it, to return the complaint to the complainant, for presenting the same, before the appropriate Forum, as and when the cause of action arose to him. The District Forum, instead of deciding the question, as to whether, it had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, decided the complaint, on merits. The order of the District Forum, thus, being without jurisdiction, and, as such, illegal, is liable to be set aside.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the appellant/complainant, for presentation before the appropriate Forum, having pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same, as and when the cause of action arises to him.
12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
4th October, 2012.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.215 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated the 4th day of October, 2012.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been accepted with no order as to costs, as per the directions, contained therein.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Ad