AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The issue involved in these revision petitions is as to whether the District Forum had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints instituted by the petitioners.
In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints where the value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed, as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the consumer complaints did not exceed Rs. 20 lakh. As held by a three member Bench of this Commission in CC No. 97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastrucutre Pvt. Ltd., the value of the services in such a case would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the allottee to the builder. Admittedly, the sale consideration which the petitioners/complainants had agreed to pay to the respondents was more than Rs.20 lakh in each case.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the order of the State Commission dated 21.08.2015 passed against an interim order of the District Forum whereby the District Forum had rejected the application of the respondent taking the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
On a perusal of the said order, we find that no final view with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction was taken by the State Commission which had left the contention in respect of the pecuniary jurisdiction to be considered by the District Forum at the time of final hearing of the complaints.
While deciding the consumer complaints finally, the District Forum held in favour of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved from the order of District Forum, the respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.
The State Commission relying upon the decision of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (supra), upheld the objection taken by the respondents and consequently, held that the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints.
Since the State Commission did not take a final view with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction while deciding the appeals against an interim order of the District Forum and the final view on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction was taken only in the impugned order dated 14.06.2018, we are unable to accept the contention that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction had attained finality and therefore, could not have been adjudicated by the State Commission vide order dated 14.06.2018.
For the reasons stated above, the revisions are disposed of in terms of the following directions.
(i) the consumer complaints shall be returned by the concerned District Forum to the petitioners alongwith a brief of statement of reasons for returning the same. The said consumer complaints shall then be presented by the petitioners before the concerned State Commission within four weeks of being returned.
(ii) The parties shall appear before the concerned State Commission on 29.04.2019.
(iii) The State Commission shall proceed with the consumer complaints from the same stage at which they were decided by the District Forum, after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence, if they so desire.
(iv) The pleadings and evidence already filed before the District Forum shall be considered by the State Commission while deciding the consumer complaints alongwith additional evidence, if any, produced by the parties in terms of the liberty granted to them.
(v) The amount deposited before the District Forum shall remain deposited during the pendency of the consumer complaints and the final order with respect to the disbursal of the said amount shall be passed by the State Commission while deciding the complaints afresh in terms of this order.
(vi) The State Commission shall expedite the hearing of the consumer complaints and decide them within six months of the parties appearing before it.