Delhi

New Delhi

CC/823/2014

Bhupesh Devgun - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. BPTP Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                           NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./823/14                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

 Mr. Bhupesh Devgan

1888/17, Govind Puri Extension

Kalkaji , New Delhi-19…… Complainant

 

Versus

 

       M/S BPTP Ltd.,

            Having its registered office at

                        M-11, Middle Circle, Cannaught Place,

                        New Delhi.                                                                           ……. Opposite party

 

PRESIDENT : ARUN KUMAR ARYA

ORDER

• M/S BPTP Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP praying for reliefs as under:-

 

1. Direct the OP to refund the delay payment interest as charged as Rs. 51,664 for mentioned delayed payment for duration 2006 to 2010. This was never brought to the attention of the complainant till August 2012.  

 

2. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for difference in specification like Marble Granite Floor. C P Fitting and finishing work etc not provided as per Buyer’s Agreement.

 

3. Direct OP to refund electricity and STP charges with principle amount as Rs.2,02,072/- with interest component duration as April 2013 to October 2014 as Rs. 51,285/- totaling Rs. 2,53,357/-.  

 

4. Direct OP to refund the delayed possession charges as per Buyer Agreement with principle amount as Rs. 39,360/- with interest duration as November 2011 to October 2014 as Rs. 20,616/- totaling Rs. 59,976/- .

 

5. Direct OP to refund the delayed interest charged for 30 days of delay in providing map and 19 days  of delay in providing the documents for HDFC Housing Loan, interest amount 39,888/-with interest duration April 2013 to August 2014 interest component as 11334 totaling Rs. 51,232/-.

 

6. Direct OP to make payment of delayed payment interest on possession installment that OP had mentioned had waived off but not given as Rs. 28, 654/- .

 

7. Direct  OP to pay a sum of Rs. 9,20,000/- as compensation the complainant had to  spent on staying with the rent with parents and spending Rs. 2,00,-000/ as monthly expenses.

 

8. Direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment , torture, agony and loss of enjoyment of property suffered by the complainant.

 

1. Direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the complainant.

 

10. Direct OP to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.

 

11. Any order/ relief in favour of the complainant and against the OP.  

 

OP was noticed and the matter was contested by it. OP had filed written statement, both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit as well as the written arguments.

The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 15.01.2018 when both sides appeared and advanced their arguments.

During the Course of arguments , Ld. Counsel for the OP raised objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum , as  the basic sale price of the villa in question is  Rs. 23,62,500/- and damages claimed  put together makes its more than Rs.20 Lakhs Hence, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the case in the light of Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in CC no. 97/2016 Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

For this purpose we may advert to Section 11of the Act:-

Section11:- (1) Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .

2.  

He has  also drawn our attention to para 14 of the judgement Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish  Kumar Shukla & Ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, as reproduced below:-

It is evident from a bare perusal of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act and 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 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 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the consumer for the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10 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 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1 crore.

The Hon’ble National Commission has taken similar view also in the case of Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17 and in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155.  

This view is also adopted by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Complaint Case no. 119/12 Ambica Steel Lts., Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

In the light of  Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, and other cases (supra) we are of the considered opinion that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and therefore, the complaint is directed to be returned to complainant with following particulars in the light of the decision  of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on 08.12.2014

• Date of return of complaint  19/01/2018

• The name of complainant(s)

Mr. Bhupesh Devgan

1888/17, Govind Puri Extension

Kalkaji , New Delhi-19

• Brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint.

The judgement in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC came on 07/10/2016, and the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, it is clear that  the cost of the flat is more than 20 lac and as such  the aggregate value of the  alleged flat and reliefs  claimed exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Forum.

Keeping in view provision of law and the law laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC referred to above, we hold that this Forum lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case and accordingly we order return of the complaint to file it before the appropriate forum.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.

Announced in open Forum on 19/01/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                  PRESIDENT

        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                        (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                                          MEMBER