State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Madhukar Demble vs Samich International Builders on 16 May, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. C/2012/95 1. Madhukar Demble a ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Samich International Builders a ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Jitendra Nath Sinha MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt Balkumari MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: ORDER RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW COMPLAINT NO. 95 OF 2012 Sri Madhukar Demble S/o Sri Behari Lal Demble R/o 31/96A, M. G. Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow. M/s. Reshma Enterprises Through its Partner Sri Madhukar Demble R/o 31/96A, M. G. Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow. ... Complainants Versus Samiah International Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. Through its Director Zamil A Khan Having Registered office at F-6, DDA Commercial Complex Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi. Samiah International Builders (Pvt. Ltd. Zonal Office IInd Floor, Raja Ram Kumar Plaza P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow. Through its Deputy General Manager Mohd. Zahir Siddiqui ....Opposite Parties COMPLAINT NO. 96 OF 2012 01.Sri Madhukar Demble S/o Sri Behari Lal Demble R/o 31/96A, M. G. Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow. 02.M/s. Reshma Enterprises Through its Partner Sri Madhukar Demble R/o 31/96A, M. G. Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow. ....Complainants Versus 01.Samiah International Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. Through its Director Zamil A Khan Having Registered office at F-6, DDA Commercial Complex Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi. 02.Samiah International Builders (Pvt. Ltd. Zonal Office IInd Floor, Raja Ram Kumar Plaza P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow. Through its Deputy General Manager Mohd. Zahir Siddiqui ....Opposite Parties :2: AND COMPLAINT NO. 97 OF 2012 01.Sri Madhukar Demble S/o Sri Behari Lal Demble R/o 31/96A, M. G. Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow. 02.M/s. Reshma Enterprises Through its Partner Sri Madhukar Demble R/o 31/96A, M. G. Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow. ....Complainants Versus 01.Samiah International Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. Through its Director Zamil A Khan Having Registered office at F-6, DDA Commercial Complex Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi. 02.Samiah International Builders (Pvt. Ltd. Zonal Office IInd Floor, Raja Ram Kumar Plaza P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow. Through its Deputy General Manager Mohd. Zahir Siddiqui ....Opposite Parties BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JITENDRA NATH SINHA, MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER For the Complainant : Sri K C Gupta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Sri Asghar Khan, Advocate. Dated : 31-05-2016 JUDGMENT PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
Present three complaints have been filed by complainants Sri Madhukar Demble and M/s. Reshma Enterprises under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against opposite parties Samiah International Builders (Pvt.) Ltd., through its Director Zamil A Khan, Registered Office at F-6, DDA, Commercial Complex, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi and Samiah International Builders (Pvt.) Ltd., Zonal Office IInd floor, :3: Raja Ram Kumar Plaza, P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow through its Deputy general Manager, Mohd. Zahir Siddiqui.
In all the above complaints the complainants have made similar prayers in respect of three different flats of building 'Samiach Meirose Avenue' located at 6A, GH-01 Vrindavan Yojna, Rai Bareilly Road, Lucknow. All the three complaints are based on common agreement and the points for determination in all the three complaints are same and parties are also same.
In view of above facts all the three complaints are disposed of by a common order.
We have heard learned Counsel for complainants as well as learned Counsel for opposite parties. Opposite parties have filed their written statement in which they have challenged the maintainability of all the three complaints before this Commission.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for opposite parties that the averment made in all complaints itself shows that complainants are not consumers defined in Section-2(d) of the Act and alleged transaction is a commercial transaction. As such the complaints are not maintainable under the Act.
It has been further contended by learned Counsel for opposite parties that all the three complaints are based on same agreement as well as on same cause of action. All the three complaints should be treated one for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission. The complainants have wrongly filed three separate complaints only to defeat provision of Section-17 of the Act regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for opposite parties that aggregate value of subject matter in dispute is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission and the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by complainants.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the complainants that three complaints have been filed by complainants in respect of three different flats and filing of three separate complaints is not against law. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the complainants that all the complaints are within pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission. The value of each complaint shall be assessed separately for the purpose of jurisdiction.
:4:It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the complainants that the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission has not been raised by opposite parties in written statements.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
Copy of agreement deed dated 03-11-2010 has been annexed by complainants with each complaint. The opposite parties have not denied the genuineness of these copies of agreement. Perusal of copies of agreement shows that complainant Madhukar Demble, Partner in M/s. Reshma Enterprises has entered into agreement with opposite parties M/s. Samiah International Builders (Pvt.) Limited on 03-11-2010 and has booked three flats by the same agreement for Rs.1,07,58,250/-.
Perusal of all the above three complaints shows that the version of complainant in each complaint is that the opposite parties agreed to deliver possession of all the three flats within 24 months from the date of booking but they have failed to complete the construction and to handover possession of all the three flats within time stipulated.
As mentioned above, the basis of claim made by complainants in all the three complaints is same agreement and cause of action is same. The total value of three flats, according to agreement, is Rs.1,07,58,250/- whereas pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission is upto Rs.1,00,00,000/- as provided in Section-17 of the Act. Thus, the value of three flats mentioned in the agreement exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
As mentioned above all the three complaints are based on same agreement and same cause of action, therefore, only one complaint should have been filed in respect of all the three flats mentioned in the agreement. Filing of three separate complaints appears to have been done only with a view to bring the dispute within the pecuniary limit of this State Commission and to defeat the provision of Section-17 of the Act.
For reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that for the purpose of jurisdiction of this Commission the aggregate value of all the flats should be seen and all the complaints should be entertained together.
In written statement filed by opposite parties it has been contended that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In written statement there is no averment about pecuniary jurisdiction of this :5: State Commission but there is a specific provision in Section-17 of the Act. Section-17 of the Act reads as follows:-
"17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the state Commission shall have jurisdiction-
to entertain-
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)"
Reading of Section-17 shows that Section-17 of the Act itself provides that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints only where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore and as concluded above three separate complaints have been filed by complainants only to defeat this provision of Section-17 of the Act. As the jurisdiction of State Commission has been defined by Act itself, therefore, even in absence of any objection of opposite parties the complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation exceeds rupees one crore cannot be entertained by the Commission.
In view of reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the present three complaints are beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. Therefore, all these complaints should be returned to the complainant to present it before the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi.
As concluded above the complaints filed by complainants are beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission. Therefore, it is not proper to record any finding on other issues raised by parties in these complaints.
In view of conclusion drawn above we hereby hold that complaints filed by the complainants are beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission. We hereby return all the complaints to complainants with liberty to file before the Hon'ble National Commission.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
This judgment shall be placed on the record of Complaint Case No. 95/2012. Copies shall be kept on the record of Complaint Case Nos. 96/2012 and 97/2012.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN ) ( J N SINHA ) ( SMT. BAL KUMARI ) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Jitendra Nath Sinha] MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt Balkumari] MEMBER