National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bishwa Mohan Kumar Singh vs M/S. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & 3 ... on 16 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 2889 OF 2017 1. BISHWA MOHAN KUMAR SINGH 532, Green Heaven Apparents, Plot No.35, Sector-4, Dwarka-110078 New Delhi ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 3 ORS. RZ-D-5, Mahavir Enclave-110045 New Delhi 2. M/s Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. C-23, Greater Kailash Enclave I-110048 New Delhi 3. Managing Director M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Orris HQ J/10, DLF Phase II, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana 4. Managing Director M/s Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. C-23, Greater Kailash Enclave I-110048 New Delhi ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mohd. Faris, Advocate. For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 16 Nov 2017 ORDER
1.This complaint has been filed by Mr. Bishwa Mohan Kumar Singh against the opposite party for refund of the amount deposited with the opposite party.
2. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant booked residential apartment with the opposite party for the consideration amount of Rs.99,61,800/- and the complainant has paid in total Rs.26,68,677/-. As the possession has been delayed, the prayer for refund of the deposited amount along with interest and the compensation has been made.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant was heard on the admissibility of this complaint before the Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel stated that the value of goods and services, interest and compensation exceeds rupees one crore and therefore this Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint. He has pointed out that the following prayer has been made in the complaint:-
(i) Direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 26,68,677/- along with 24% interest compounded annually to the Complainant and to take all required steps pursuant to the forgoing.
(ii) Direct Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for unfair trade practices;
(iii) Direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental harassment and anxiety;
(iv) Direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the Complainant as reimbursement/cost of legal expenses;
(v) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit in the interest of justice".
5. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla &Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 in order to claim jurisdiction of this Commission. It has been argued that this judgment takes into consideration total consideration of the property along with compensation and interest for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer fora.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and examined the record. The prayer in the complaint is basically for refund of Rs.26,68,677 along with interest @ 24% per annum compounded annually. The tentative date of possession was 36 months after the date of allotment plus 6 months of grace period. The date of allotment letter is 13.08.2013. Therefore, the possession was due latest by 13.02.2017. The total paid amount of Rs. 26,68,677/- has been paid within a period from 13.08.2012 to 01.02.2013. The compounded interest is not allowed in such cases and it is only the simple interest that has been allowed in many cases by this Commission as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Apart from this, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for unfair trade practice and a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental harassment and anxiety have been demanded. The amount of refund along with compensation as claimed by the complainant would not exceed Rs. One Crore. As per Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only the value of goods and services as well as the compensation claimed is to be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum. Therefore, clearly this amount is less than rupees one crore, so this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint. However, it has been argued by the learned counsel that interest also is part of compensation and needs to be added to this figure to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction. In this regard, it is seen that the complainant has asked for compound interest @ 24% p.a. This Commission is allowing only simple interest in such cases. Moreover, the current rate of interest is not 24%, and this Commission has been allowing 9-12% but even for the sake of argument, if 24% simple interest is allowed on the paid amount, the total amount including the compensation of Rs.1,50,000 /- for unfair trade practices and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental harassment does not cross the figure of rupees one crore. So, even after including the interest, the value of goods and services together with compensation does not entitle the complainant to avail the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
7. The learned counsel contended that instead of the amount of refund, the value of total consideration of the flat needs to be taken into account as per the judgment of Larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla &Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is true that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla &Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (supra). A reading of this judgment shows that this Commission has held that in cases where even the part deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. However this assertion of the larger bench of this Commission is based on the value of goods or services as mentioned in context of the definition of " consumer" as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which includes the phrase "partly paid and partly promised". It is found that the judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested. Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement. The learned counsel for the Complainant has drawn my attention to para 14 of the judgment of the larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This portion of the judgment has elucidated the point by giving example that if matter of dispute is regarding repair of a machine where the cost is less then Rupees one crore, but the machine has costed more than Rupees one Crore then the jurisdiction of the National Commission may be invoked. Clearly this is not the matter in the present case. In the cases of refund the value of goods or services has to be the value of the amount actually paid because the "payment promised" will never materialise. In these circumstances, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint case as stated earlier.
8. From the above discussion, it is clearly seen that the present complaint is not maintainable in this Commission on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, consumer complaint No.2889/2017 is dismissed as not being maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, the complainant is given liberty to file the complaint before the concerned State Commission, which will decide the complaint on merits.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER