AMARDEEP SINGH HIRA vs CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19.2.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby the complaint was ordered to be returned to the appellants/complainants for being presented before the appropriate Forum competent to entertain and adjudicate the same.

APPELLANTS filed a complaint against the respondents, inter alia, alleging that respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 advertisement for sale of plots at Chandigarh in an open auction to be held on 18.11.1997. Appellants gave bid for site/S.C.O. No. 60, Sector 32C and D, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 62 lakhs in the auction. Out of this amount, the appellants deposited a total sum of Rs. 31 lakhs and letter of allotment dated 21.1.1998 was also issued. Possession of said plot was handed over to them on 6.11.1998. It was revealed later on that a sewer line passed through the said plot at the depth of 4.5 feet, thus, making it impossible for the appellants to raise any construction thereon. In the complaint, the appellants claimed a number of reliefs. State Commission disposed of the complaint in the manner noticed above. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Gupta for appellants and Mr. N. K. Verma for respondents and have also been taken through the record.

ONLY the reliefs at Sl. Nos. (i) to (v) in the complaint are material for deciding this appeal and the same are reproduced below : (i) immediate removal of the sewerage line crossing the aforementioned plot/site; (ii) immediately providing of approach road to the plot/site; (iii) provision of proper sewerage at the site; (iv) providing of rain water drainage system; (v) providing of street lights electricity, etc.

ORDER under appeal would show that in the original complaint, the appellants had not specifically mentioned about the valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and pursuant to the order made by Commission, amended complaint was filed by the appellants. In para No. 14 of amended complaint, the reliefs at (i) to (v) were valued notionally at a sum of Rs. 195/-. Relief (vi) sought in the alternative was for award of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount deposited by the appellants from the date of deposit till the defects at the site removed and amenities provided. Relief (vii) related to award of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of increase in cost of construction. Relief (viii) pertained to award of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of mental agony and torture, etc. allegedly caused to the appellants. In said para 14 of amended complaint, it was further stated that the total value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of said reliefs was Rs. 17,82,025/-. State Commission was of the view that value of Rs. 195/- in respect of said reliefs (i) to (v) had been fixed without any reasonable basis and as these reliefs pertain to the plot purchased in auction for a sum of Rs. 62 lakhs, the same ought to have been valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 62 lakhs and adding this amount to the amounts claimed on account of compensation, interest, etc. it would be beyond the outer limit of Rs. 20 lakhs of the Commission. To be noted that aforesaid amount of Rs. 17,82,025/- includes interest @ 18% per annum which is claimed by way of relief (vi) in the alternative to (i) to (v). Further, in our view, aforesaid amount of Rs. 62 lakhs being the cost of said plot could be taken as the value in respect of said reliefs (i) to (v) for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. At any rate, the pecuniary jurisdiction in this case did not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. Impugned order, thus, cannot be legally sustained and the case deserves to be remanded for being decided afresh on merits. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forums has been increased from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint has now to be tried by District Forum having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the complaint. Resultantly, while allowing appeal, order dated 19.2.2002 is set aside and case remanded to District Forum for being decided on merits. No order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum for direction on 7.7.2003.