State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hira Lal Mittal Son Of Late Sh. O.P. ... vs 1. M/S Omaxe Ltd. Regd. Office At 7-Local ... on 12 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Complaint No.32 of 2013 Date of Institution: 22.05.2013 Date of Decision: 12.02.2014 Hira Lal Mittal son of late Sh. O.P. Mittal, Resident of H.No.885, Sector 14, Hissar Haryana. Complainant Versus 1. M/s Omaxe Ltd. Regd. Office at 7-Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-110019. 2. Sarvodya Services (Authorised Dealers of Omaxe Ltd.) 118, Shamji Complex, Delhi Road, Bahadurgarh 124507 (Haryana). Opposite Parties CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Parties: Shri K.C. Singla, Advocate for complainant. Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties. O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
This original complaint is before this Commission involving controversy relating to the increase in the area of flat and the extra price thereof.
2. Hira Lal Mittal-complainant booked a flat with M/s Omaxe Limited (formerly known as Omaxe Construction Ltd.). He was allotted flat No.101 in SEARS Tower on first floor having Super area approximately 108.23 sq. mtrs. (1165 sq. ft.) at OMAXE NORTH AVENUE, Bahadurgarh at a cost of Rs.25,14,125/- vide Agreement Exhibit C-1. However, later on the super area of the flat was increased to 1214 sq. ft. Accordingly, the opposite parties demanded the price of the increased area to which the complainant objected and filed the instant complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short Act, 1986).
3. Opposite Parties appeared and contested complaint by filing written statement while justifying the disputed amount.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
5. At the very outset the question for consideration is as to whether the complaint is maintainable or not before this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction?
6. Admittedly, the claim of the complainant is not of more than Rs.20.00 lacs but still he filed complaint on the ground that the price of the flat was more than Rs.20.00 lacs.
7. Section 11 and 17 of the Act relate to the jurisdiction, reproduced as under:-
11.
Jurisdiction of the district forum.
(1) Subject to 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 1[does not exceed rupees 2[twenty lakhs]].
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -
(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2[carries on business or has a branch office, or] personally works for gain; or
(b) Any of the opposite parties where there are more then one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 1[carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, Provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 1[carry on business or have a branch office], or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part arises.
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission 1[(1)] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction
(a) to entertain
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees 2[twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore;] and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise on its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
3[(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for again; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.]
8. The dispute between the parties is not with respect to the possession of flat but is for the excess price of the flat with respect to the excess area, which does not exceed Rs.20.00 lacs and therefore the complaint was maintainable before the District Forum. The legislature has rightly used the words claimed while fixing the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the amount claimed would be relevant for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. It is well settled principle of law that the suit should be filed in the court of lowest grade competent to try the suit and Court/Forum can pass a decree for an amount in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction. Reference in this regard is made to the observation made in Krishna D. Singh v. Pavan T. Punjabi (Bombay) (D.B.) 2004(1) BCR 551, Honble Bombay High Court has held as under:-
.. For the purpose of valuation of a dispute, reliefs claimed have to be considered in the context of averments in the complaint/suit. The rule is that a suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try the suit and Court/Forum can pass a decree for an amount in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction, which excessiveness in the result of such benefits arising on the basis of valuation of the subject matter. That being so, we reiterated, jurisdiction shall be determined by the valuation in complaint and not by the result of the decree.
Usefully we may refer to the recent decisions of the National Commission lending support to our above view. The decisions in question are (1) (Vijay Shankarv. Mandeep Singh, National Commission & others), reported in 2003(11) C.P.J. 170 (June 03 Issue) and (2) (Shahbad Co-operative Sugar Mills v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others), reported in 2003 C.T.J. Page 453 (N.C.) (June 2003 issue) taking the same view as we have done. In the first case, (Supra) the complainant claimed further loss and in the second case (Supra) the complainant claimed interest as is the case in hand.
10. In view of the bare reading of Section 11 and 17 of the Act, 1986 and the settled principle of law, it is clear that the complainant has filed the complaint before this Commission as per his convenience whereas the relief claimed by him is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.
11 This case is fully covered by Krishna D. Singhs case (Supra). Since the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, it would be in the interest of justice not to deal with the same on merits.
12. In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed. Complainant shall be at liberty to file complaint before the competent District Forum.
Announced:
12.02.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL