State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Golam Mohiuddin vs The Abs Land Development And ... on 14 January, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/16/2015 1. Mr. Golam Mohiuddin S/o Mr. Golam Ambia, represented by his constituted attorney, Mr. Golam Gouse, S/o Mr. Golam Ambia, Vill. Bahina More, P.O. Mollapur, P.S. Moyureswar, Dist. Birbhum, West Bengal, Pin-731 216. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. The ABS Land Development and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Service through its Director, Sri Tapan Kumar Ghosh, 13/B, Jatin Das Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata - 700 029. 2. Sri Tapan Kumar Ghosh S/o Late P.L. Ghosh, Director, The ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd., 13/B, Jatin Das Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata - 700 029. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Taraknath Chakraborty , Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Amit Das, Mr. Sourendra Nath Basu, Advocate Mr. Amit Das, Mr Sourendra Nath Basu, Advocate ORDER
14/01/16 HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to MA 780 of 2015 filed by the OPs challenging the maintainability of the complaint case. It has been stated in the petition that the total amount of the reliefs claimed would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the complaint has been filed by a private limited company. The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has referred to the decision reported in 2012 (2) CPR 68 (NC) [M/s MCS Computer Services (P) Ltd. vs. M/s Allena Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.].
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction should be determined on the basis of the relief sought for in the instant case. It is submitted that the OP agreed to refund the balance amount. It is contended that the total valuation is below Rs.1 crore, that is, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decision reported in (2004) 1 SCC 305 [Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRS. & Ors.].
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It appears that the complaint has been filed by Mr. Golam Mohiuddin @ Mohiuddin Golam represented by his constituted attorney, elder brother, Mr. Golam Gouse. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant that the complaint has been filed by the private limited company is, therefore, not acceptable.
Secondly, as to the point of pecuniary jurisdiction it has been admitted in paragraph 3 of the petition of complaint that the total consideration was Rs.85 lakh and thereafter there was cancellation agreement dated 20/07/12 and in furtherance thereof the sum of Rs.30,50,000/- was refunded. In paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint it has also been stated that Rs.30,50,000/- was refunded as adhoc payment. The Hon'ble National Commission in the decisions reported in 1996 (2) CPR 26 (NC) [M/s Quality Foils India Ltd. vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr.] and in RP No.2679 of 2011 and RP No.2680 of 2011 [P.S. Srijan Enclave & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Bhargav and Sanjay Dewan] held that total value of goods and/or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. In the instant case the total consideration was Rs.85 lakh and in the prayer portion of the complaint the Complainant has prayed for interest @ 15% p.a. thereon, Rs.5 lakh as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost. The Complainant through his Learned Advocate sent a notice dated 02/12/14 to the OP claiming the amount of Rs.1,06,94,800/-. The Misc. Applicant has also computed the total amount towards principal amount with interest and the other reliefs at Rs.1,15,18,125/-. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the considered view that the total amount of the reliefs sought for together with total amount of consideration would exceed the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint, therefore, is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
MA 780 of 2015 is allowed. The petition of complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER