GURMUKH SINGH Vs. GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ; CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 1 10. 2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 464/2017, "Gurmukh Singh versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Anr. ", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 06. 2017, passed by the District Forum Mohali, in consumer complaint No. 316/2016, filed by the present petitioner, holding that the said Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to take cognisance of the matter in question, was upheld.

(2.) The petitioner/complainant Gurmukh Singh submitted his application No. 8450 for allotment of a category 'A', Type I apartment with the opposite party (OP) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and also made an initial deposit of Rs. 3,70,000/-. The complainant was successful in the draw of lots taken out by the OP and a letter of intent for allotment of a residential apartment, showing the total price and payment schedule etc. was issued to him. The complainant deposited a further sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- to the OP and in this manner, made a total deposit of Rs. 11,10,000/- with them. It is stated that as the financial position of the complainant was not good, he made a request in January 2013 for refund of the amount deposited by him. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant received a partial refund only of Rs. 5,96,091/- through cheque dated 30. 09. 2015 and in this way, he suffered a net loss of Rs. 4,76,910/-. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of the said amount, alongwith another Rs. 1 lakh as cost of borrowing the funds in question. The complainant sought directions to the OPs to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,76,910/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 2 lakh and also the litigation cost. When the case came-up for hearing before the District Forum, it was ordered on 01. 06. 2017 that the total agreed sale consideration of the property was Rs. 37 lakh and hence, considering the value of the goods or services, the case did not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum ordered return of the complaint to the complainant, relying upon the decision of this Commission in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited [CC/97/2016 & allied matters decided on 07. 10. 2016]" and granted liberty to him to approach the appropriate consumer fora for the redressal of his grievance. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. However, the said Commission, also relying upon the order passed by a larger Bench of this Commission in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited ", held that the total value of the goods or services was to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer fora. The State Commission held that there was no merit in the appeal and the same was ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) During hearing, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, as per proper interpretation of the order passed by this Commission in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited ". The matter should, therefore, be decided on merits by this Commission or in the alternative, the matter should be remanded to the District Forum to decide the complaint on merits.