State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurmukh Singh vs Greater Mohali Area Development ... on 11 October, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.464 of 2017
Date of Institution :14.06.2017
Date of Decision : 11.10.2017
Gurmukh Singh son of Shri Santokh Singh, House No.84/11, Deol
Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar - 144003 (Punjab).
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA
Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Estate
Officer.
2. The Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development
Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
........Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal against order dated
01.06.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Mohali.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manjit Singh, Advocate For respondents : Sh. Anuj Kohli, Advocate ............................................ J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 01.06.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum SAS Nagar Mohali, returning the complaint of appellant along with all requisite documents for approaching the competent forum. FA 464 of 2017 2
Appellant of this appeal is complainant in the complaint and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties therein and they be referred, as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. The complainant instituted complaint against OPs on the averments that his application No.8450, Category 'A', Type-I Apartment along with initial deposit of Rs.3.70 lacs was successful during draw held on 16.03.2012, vide serial No.406 letter dated 23.03.2012 of OPs. The letter of intent provided that in case of refusal to accept the allotment within 30 days, the money by deducting 10% of earnest amount was to be returned to allottee by OPs. He deposited Rs.7,40,000/- on 22.06.2012 being 20% price of the apartment. Deduction of 10% penalty is quite onerous in nature and he offered to continue with the allotment. He filed appeal before authorities, but his appeal was not accepted against OP No.1 on 19.07.2014 by the Appellate Authority. By deducting Rs.5,02,476/- with service tax of Rs.11,430/-, he has been ordered to be paid Rs.5,96,091/- vide cheque dated 30.09.2015. OPs wrongfully deducted the amount and he suffered loss thereby. He filed complaint directing OP to pay the deducted amount of Rs.5,76,910/- with interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
3. Upon reply, OPs filed written reply and contested the complaint vehemently. Preliminary objections were raised that complaint is without any cause of action and complainant has no FA 464 of 2017 3 locus standi to file it. There is arbitration clause in Clause 6 of intent of allotment for resolution of dispute through arbitrator. Only 10% of the amount out of total consideration with interest penalty has been forfeited by OPs in this case. OPs passed order under Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act 1995. OPs alleged the complaint to be speculative and prayed for its dismissal.
4. Vide order dated 01.06.2017, District Forum SAS Nagar Mohali returned the complaint to complainant on account of its lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Aggrieved by order of District Forum dated 01.06.2017, complainant now appellant carried this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. District Forum relied upon the view of Larger Bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 2017(1) CPJ 1 and held that it is the value of the goods or services, which is to be calculated for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service. The District Forum held that total agreed sales consideration of the flat in this case is Rs.37,00,000/-, which is beyond the pale of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum and hence, passed the order returning the complaint.
FA 464 of 2017 4
6. Section 11(1) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is relevant provision of law for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum. It is reproduced as under:-
Section 11(1) CP Act reads as under:-
"Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs)."
It is, thus, plain from perusal of above statutory provision of the Act that it is the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which is to be calculated for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. We find that the total price of the flat in this case is Rs.37,00,000/-, as is evident from letter of intent for allotment Ex.C-2 on the record. Counsel for complainant submitted that it is the amount paid by him to OPs, which is to be taken as consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in this case. We are unable to buy this argument of counsel for complainant. The Larger Bench of National Commission has examined this controversy in Ambirsh Kumar Shukla ('Supra') and held that it is the value of the goods or the services and the compensation, if any, claimed which is to be counted for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. National Commission has further held in Dinesh Kumar FA 464 of 2017 5 Yadav Vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure and Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017(2) CPJ 293, relying upon Ambrish Kumar Shukla's case (supra) and observed that value of the service means the sale consideration agreed upon between consumer and service provider. In the cited case, it has been laid down that sale consideration of the flat booked constitutes value of the service. In Amrish Kumar Shukla's case (supra) Larger Bench of National Commission ruled that it is the value of goods or services as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Even Section 11(1) of CP Act makes it pellucid that it is the value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which is to be counted for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. The sale consideration in this case of Rs.37,00,000/-, which is the value of services. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum is not contingent on this point as to whether complainant/consumer has been delivered possession or is out of possession of the allotted property. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum is determined as per the aggregate value of the goods or the services. The District Forum rightly expressed lack of pecuniary jurisdiction on its part under Section 11(1) of CP Act 1986 and ordered the return of complaint to complainant. The order passed by District Forum does not suffer from any flaw in our opinion.
FA 464 of 2017 6
7. As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
8. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties under rules.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. KLAR)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
October 11, 2017 (Surinder Pal Kaur)
DB MEMBER