Kindly consider the following scenario
1. Cost of flat is 50 lacs. Posession not given on time.
2. Complaint filed in district forum with the following prayer
a. Direct OP to handover physical posession
b. Compensate loss due to delay in posession. Total compensation demanded is 16 lacs
OP challenges pecuniary jurisdiction of the district forum to entertain the complaint as the cost of the flat is more than 20 lacs (it is 50 lacs). OP approached state commission on this basis and aquires a stay on the proceeding taking place in the district forum.
My question is
1. Does the cost of the flat a factor at all in valuation of the complaint for the purpouse of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction?
In Vipul seth vs. Jaipuria Developers the state comission observed the following
“The complainant has, through this complaint, sought the following reliefs:
(a) Immediate delivery of the possession of the flat in question i.e. A-1801, originally allotted to the complainant from the OP along with other promised facilities and services to the complainant.
(b) Allow the compensation of Rs. 6,78,576/- against the loss equivalent to the monthly installments of the bank loan Rs, 5,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony, Rs. 11,75,006. towards penalty as on the date of filing this complaint, the total of Rs. 23,53,582. as on the date of filing of the present complaint and such other penalties and interests during the pendency of the present complaint holding the OP to pay the same to the complainant.”
“9. Thus, even if the allegations of the complainant are assumed to be correct, still in our view, the amount of compensation is exaggerated and may not exceed Rs. 20 lacs for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.”
“11. In view of the above, we transfer the complaint to the concerned District Forum for consideration.”
In Digvijay Singh vs. M/s Eldeco Infrastructure the state commission observed the following
“Complainant booked a flat with the respondent, cost of which was originally quoted as Rs. 36, 93, 475. Inspite of having paid the entire consideration amount the respondent did not hand over the possession of the flat. However, it raised further demand of Rs. 3, 26,151/- towards one time lease rent, club membership fees, car parking charges. Since the complainant could not afford this amount as he had already raised loan from bank, he requested for allotting a smaller flat. The request was allowed. Cost of the smaller flat was Rs. 23, 50, 000/-. Till date neither the possession of the flat has been handed over to the complainant nor the extra amount of Rs. 13, 00,000/- has been refunded.
2. The extra amount claimed by the complainant and the direction for handing over possession of the flat brings the matter within the jurisdiction of the District Forum for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complaint is hereby admitted and transferred to the concerned District Forum for deciding it on merits.”
In Poonam Wadhwa & ors Vs. Taneja Developers the state commission has observed the below
“This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.9.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint.
2. in 2007, Shri K.K. Gupta paid Rs.9, 25,000/- to the OP and booked a plot measuring 500 sq.yards @Rs.9, 250/- per square yard. He relinquished his right, in respect of the said plot by selling the booking receipt to complainant No. 1. Similarly, Smt. Ravi Goyal booked a plot measuring 500 square yards for Rs.5, 00,000/- @Rs.6500/- per square yard and relinquished her right, in respect of the said plot by selling the booking receipt, to complainant No. 2. Mr. Vinit Kumar also booked a plot of 500 square yards for Rs.9,25,000/- @ Rs.9250/- per square yard, and relinquished his right in respect of the said plot by selling the booking slip to complainant No. 3 in Feb, 2008.”
“11. Coming to the pecuniary jurisdiction, it may be stated here, that the same is required to be decided, from the relief, claimed by the complainant, in the complaint. The relief which was claimed by the complainants, in the complaint, was that the OP be directed to transfer the booking receipts and allot the plots and handover possession to them, within the time frame as per the rules and regulations, framed by the Punjab Urban Development Authority, besides imposing heavy penalty for deficiency in service.
The complainants did not seek relief of refund of the amounts of booking receipts along with interest. As such, from the relief, sought for by the complainants, it could not be said that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.”
In Dilip Kumar Sil vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation the state commission observed the following
“In the above background if Section 17 is considered for finding the law as relating to valuation for ascertaining pecuniary jurisdiction of a Forum/Commission, the value of the service and compensation are to be taken together. Admittedly in the present case the complainant has not assessed any money value for the services and compensation of Rs.10 lacs has been demanded. Even in the case of Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) we find that consideration in that case was as to whether the value of the goods or of services is to be taken separately from the compensation or the aggregate value of the said two items are to be taken into consideration. The judgment shows “where a claim of compensation is pleaded in a consumer complaint, then the total value of the goods or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction. It is the aggregate value of the goods and compensation or the aggregate value of the services as well as that of compensation that determines the pecuniary jurisdiction.”
In view of the said law also we are of the opinion that value of the flats are not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of finding pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of the present proceeding. The judgment of this Commission in the case of Dr. Amiya Kr. Prodhan also laid down the same law following the case of Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the value of the flats are not to be considered for finding out pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and on such finding the complaint herein is found not maintainable before this Commission and should be proceeded with before appropriate Forum. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action before appropriate Forum.”
4. Does it mean that the district forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where
a. The cost of the flat is more than 20 lacs
and
b. The prayer in the complaint is direct the OP to handover poseession.
and
c.The compensation claimed in the complaint is below 20 lacs.
Please help.
Regards
Mahesh
09891831664
