Rakesh Kumar Batra etc. Vs. The JIT

Present: Sh. Anuj Mehta, Adv Counsel for the Complainants.

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that on 07.03.2018, the complainants made an auction of one S. C. O. bearing No.10 at 170 Acre Scheme (Surya Enclave), Jalandhar for their personal use and occupation regarding area measuring 111.11 Sq. Ft and the complainants were considered to purchase the said property from OP for a total sum of Rs.63,33,270/- i.e. @ of Rs.57,000/- per Sq. Ft. and complainants paid OP its 25% amount at that time along with all tax and cess. The OP, as per resolution No.359 on dated 28.09.2018 and vide Memo of Govt. dated 28.02.2019 confirmed the allotment of the aforesaid property in favour of the complainants and one letter No.JIT/4424 dated 01.04.2019 has been received by the complainants on 15.04.2019 by hand through their representative at their house with due signatures. Copy of the said registered of the JIT is attached which clearly shows that the said letter was received by the complainants on 15.04.2019 and the same bears NO.4424//01.04.2019. It is worth to mention here that the earlier entry in the said register pertains to letter dated 08.04.2019, which clearly proves the facts that the OP intentionally did not issue the said letter to the complainants in time.

2. That as per the said allotment letter, OP as per their norms gave a condition/option to the complainants to give them a rebate of 5% in case they deposited. As per the said allotment letter, OP as per their norms gave a condition/option to the complainant to give them a rebate of 5% in case they deposited the remaining balance payment of Rs.47,49,952/- within 30 days from its issuance of the aforesaid letter, which amounts to Rs.45,12,455/- but in clause No.11 of the said allotment letter, the OP also directed the complainants that if they opted the said condition, then they have to pay the amount till 30.04.2019 or to pay the installment with around interest @ 12% on the said amount. The OP has not given appropriate time to the complainants to deposit the remaining amount in one short with their bad intention and they have deliberately delivered the letter dated 01.04.2019 to the complainants on 15.04.2019, as the office of OP was in fact not in a condition to deliver the possession of the said property due to non development to the complainants and in case they deposited the amount in one short they are unable to full fill their conditions of the allotment letter. The OP was also well aware with the fact that after 15^th of this month there were 4 bank holiday and when the complainants approached OP in this regard and apprised them with the situation, then officer incharge assured the complainants to enhance the time, as their staff were busy in the election duty, but after few days, she stated to the complainants to give a written request at their office for enhancement of time and the complainants in good faith gave their request letter at their office on 26.04.2019, vide letter No.2267 and officer incharge again assured the complainants to give them appropriate time to deposit the remaining amount with rebate of 5%. The complainants although ready to make the payment in one short, but for that they have to arrange the said amount by encashing the amount from their fixed deposits, Mutual funds and PPF account et. So, they required minimum 15 more days for the same and as per their assurance the complainants started arranging the amount, but when they approached OP on 29.04.2019 regarding their extension letter they were of utter surprise from OP end as they failed to listen complainants and directed them to deposit the installments amount with interest, thereafter complainant served a legal notice to OP on 30.04.2019, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,37,497/- i.e. loss of rebate of 5% along with the damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice and further be directed to receive the remaining payment of the plot from the complainants by giving them appropriate time and further be directed to hand over the possession of the plot by making necessary development within one month after the receipt of remaining payment be given to the complainants in the interest of justice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of the complaint and also scanned the case file very minutely.

4. After considering the contents of the complaint, it reveals that the value of the SCO is Rs.63,33,270/- as described by the complainant himself in Para No.3 of the complaint. However, the counsel for the complainant made much stress upon the prayer clause, wherein he demanded only an amount of Rs.2,37,497/- as loss caused to the complainant for not providing rebate of 5% and further claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and in total Rs.4,37,497/- and accordingly, submitted that the complaint of the complainant is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

5. We are not agreed with the assertion of the counsel for the complainant because at the time of considering the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Forum has to take into consideration the entire price of the product or entire price of the services availed, the complainant has no right to make any shortcut of the same by claiming less amount. In order to ascertain the pecuniary jurisdiction, it is necessary to take entire price of the product as well as price of the services availed by the consumer and in support of this observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2017 CPJ 1 (NC), titled as “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12(1)(c)- Pecuniary Jurisdiction- Interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12(1)(c)- Pecuniary Jurisdiction-Determination-consideration paid or agreed to be paid by 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 complaint, to be determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.”

6. In view of the above detailed discussion, we apparently find that the total consideration amount of the plot, so agreed to purchase by the complainant is Rs.63,33,270/-, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is upto Rs.20,00,000/- and as such, the complaint of the complainant is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the Record Room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

11.06.2019 Member President