AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
The only issue involved in this petition pertains to the validity of the District Forum’s decision to dismiss the Complaint, which is based on an Application submitted by the Respondents, asserting that the District Forum lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint due to its valuation exceeding 20 Lakh.
Admittedly, in this Revision Petition, the Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Respondents to purchase the property at H.No. B-1348, 1st Floor, rear portion, Greenfields Colony, Faridabad, Haryana 121010, for a total consideration of Rs.65,00,000/-. However, the Petitioner subsequently filed a Complaint before the learned District Forum, vide CC No. 592/2019, seeking a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Respondents. This claim was based on alleged deficiencies in the services related to the aforementioned property, which the Petitioner had purchased from the Respondents, inclusive of compensation for mental harassment.
The learned District Forum vide Order dated 24.03.2022 decided the Respondents Application as regards maintainability of the Complaint based on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the Respondents, and consequently dismissing the Complaint without delving into the merits of the case. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Petitioner filed Appeal No. 133 of 2022 before the learned State Commission and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.08.2022, upheld the decision of the District Forum. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed this Revision Petition.
Heard the Petitioner’s father (AR) in person and the counsel for the Respondents. Perused the entire material on record including the Orders of both the fora.
The AR of the Petitioner contended that, in terms of Section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is mandated to determine the maintainability and jurisdiction of a complaint based solely on the allegations and evidence presented. Referring to Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it was argued that if a court has already adjudicated upon the monetary value of a dispute, it cannot dismiss the suit but must refer it to the appropriate court. He cited Supreme Court's judgment in Rajiv Hitendra Phatak & Others vs. Achyut Kashi Karkelkar and Neena Arneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates, it was emphasized that the Act, 2019, should not retrospectively apply to cases under the repealed CPA, 1986. Additionally, in Ambrish Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. pertained to hiring of construction services, which is distinct from the present case involving the sale of property.
He also argued that the State Commission failed to specify whether the dismissal of the first appeal was under the CPA, 1986 or the CP Act, 2019. It was contended that since the complaint was amended to invoke Section 34 of the CP Act, 2019, and the jurisdiction of the District Forum under this act was one crore, the dismissal of the first appeal under the CP Act, 2019, was erroneous.
The Counsel for the Respondent countered the Petitioner's argument by asserting that under Section 11 of the CP Act, 1986, the jurisdiction of the District Forum is determined based on the aggregate value of goods and services involved in the dispute, along with any compensation claimed. Referring to the judgment in Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr. and the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., it was emphasized that the total sale amount of Rs.65,00,000/- and the claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- must be considered together to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. Accordingly, the Counsel argued that since the total amount exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Forum, the rejection of the complaint by the District Forum and the affirmation of this decision by the State Commission were correct. They further asserted that the State Commission's decision was in line with established precedents of the Hon'ble Commission.
I would like to rely upon the recent Order of this Commission in the case of M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., CC No. 833 of 2020, decided on 28.08.2020 which emphasizes that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is determined solely by the value of the consideration paid for goods or services and not by the value of the goods or services themselves or any compensation. The relevant paras of the aforesaid Order are reproduced below: -
“8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.
For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:
“34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:”
“47. (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 paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:”
“58. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:”
The decision in M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) makes it abundantly clear that, for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the value of the consideration paid for goods or services should be considered. The recent notification of the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, further reinforces this point. According to these rules:
The pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commissions is up to ₹50 lakhs.
The pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commissions is for cases where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ₹50 lakhs but does not exceed ₹2 crores.
The pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission is for cases where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ₹2 crores.
This notification aligns with the principles outlined in the Act and provides clarity on the jurisdictional limits for different levels of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Therefore, it is crucial to consider these rules and adhere to them when determining jurisdiction in consumer complaint cases.
In view of the forgoing discussion, it is evident that the value of consideration paid by the Petitioner/Complainant was Rs.65,00,000/-, which exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-. Therefore, the learned District Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Complaint.
Undisputedly, both the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission dismissed the complaint solely on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, without considering the merits. Moreover, neither of the orders provided the Petitioner/Complainant with the liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Therefore, this revision petition challenges the orders of the lower fora on the same issue. As a result, the revision petition is allowed to that extent. The impugned orders are modified to the extent of granting the Petitioner/ Complainant the liberty to file a Consumer Complaint before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.
The complainant is granted the liberty to approach the appropriate fora, taking into consideration the pecuniary jurisdiction as per the provisions of the Act. It is clarified that the period during which the complaint was pending, from its filing date until the date of this order, shall be excluded for the computation of the limitation period for the fresh filing of the complaint.
All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.