AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1924 OF 2018
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that she has instruction to withdraw the appeal. Dismissed as withdrawn.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1923 & 1925 OF 2018
First Appeal No.1923/2018 is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 04.09.2018 whereby a consumer complaint instituted by the appellant against the respondent company was dismissed solely on the ground that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the complainant/appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
First Appeal No.1925/2018 is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 04.09.2018 dismissing the consumer complaint instituted by the complainant/appellant on the very same ground i.e. that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.
In the consumer complaint subject matter of First Appeal No.1923/2018, the complainant had booked a residential flat for an agreed consideration of more than Rs.2 crores. He made payment of more than Rs.1,90,00,000/- for the flat but possession was not delivered to him. He filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation amounting to about Rs.47 lakh.
In the consumer complaint subject matter of First Appeal No.1925/2018, the complainant/appellant had booked a residential flat for a consideration for more than Rs.1,60,00,000/- and had made payment of Rs.1,54,00,000/- to the respondent. They had also sought compensation of more than Rs.61 lakh from the respondent.
The question involved in these appeals came up for consideration of Three Member Bench of this Commission in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.", and the following views are taken.
" Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. Therefore, what has to be seen, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, is the value of the goods or services and the amount of the compensation claimed in the complaint. If the aggregate of (i) the value of the goods or services and (ii) the compensation claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Similarly, if the aggregate of the value of (i) the goods or services and (ii) compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.20.00 lacs but does not exceed Rs.1.00 Crore, the State Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus recognized that the interest to the flat buyers is paid by way of compensation. In fact, though the Consumer Protection Act, authorises the Consumer Forum to award compensation, no specific powers to award interest has been conferred upon it. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the amount of the interest, which can be paid as compensation, must necessarily be taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
Reference dated 11.8.2016
Issue No. (i)
It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
Issue No. (ii)
The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.
Issue No. (iii)
The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum."
It is thus evident that pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer forum is to be determined solely on the basis of value of the goods purchased or the services had availed by consumer and the compensation claimed by him. The value of the services had by the complainant/appellant being more than Rs.one crore in both these cases, the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint would vest solely with this Commission in view of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The compensation claimed in the consumer complaint not being the sole factor for determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction, it would be immaterial that the complainant/appellant had claimed compensation 25 at less than Rs.one crore. The compensation claimed by them has to be added to the value of the service hired or availed by them and it is the aggregate of the two amounts which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission being absolutely inconsonance with the legal position obtaining in the matter, it does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
The appeals are, therefore dismissed. It is however, made clear that the dismissal of the consumer complaint by the State Commission shall not come in the way of the complainant/appellant approaching this commission by way of a consumer complaint or availing such other remedy as may be open to them in law.