DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. SATISH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant who is petitioner in R.P. No.2105 of 2015 and respondent in R.P. No.110 of 2015 booked a residential flat with the DLF Home Developers Ltd. petitioner in R.P. No.110 of 2015 and respondent in R.P. No.2105 of 2015, for a consideration of Rs.5315999/-. He made a total payment of Rs.1437689/- to the builder. Relying upon a newspaper report dated 12.2.2009. The complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him along with compensation. The complaint was resisted by the builder on several grounds including that since the sale consideration was Rs.53 lakhs, the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. During pendency of this complaint, the builder refunded a sum of Rs.824951.84 to the complainant. The District Forum vide its order dated 16.8.2012 directed the builder to refund the balance amount of Rs.612542.74 along with interest @ 6% p.a. and Rs.1 lakh as compensation for harassment. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the builder approached the concerned State Commission by way an appeal. Since the complainant was also not satisfied with the said order, he also preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 11.11.2014, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals thereby upholding the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, both the parties are before this Commission by way of two separate revision petitions.

(2.) In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint if the value of the goods bought or the services hired or availed as the case might be along with compensation if any, claimed in the complaint did not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission dated 7.10.2016 in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the value of service in such a case would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. Admittedly, the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the complainant to the builder for the flat booked by him was more than Rs.53 lakhs. Therefore, the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It would be appropriate to note here that a specific objection with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint was taken in the written version filed before the District Forum. Unfortunately, the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction was not addressed either by the District Forum or by the State Commission. However, the fact remains that since the value of the services hired or availed by the complainant was more than Rs.20 lakhs, the District Forum did not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) The next question which arises for consideration is as to what should be the appropriate course of action to be followed in such a case where the consumer complaint was instituted before the District Forum in the year 2009 and 9 years from the said institution have already lapsed. Confronted with such a situation, the following was the view taken by this Commission in Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in CC No.198 of 2015 and connected matters decided on 31.1.2017.