DHARMENDRA KUMAR vs M/S. NITISHREE INFRATSRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

This case has a chequered history. The complainant, Dharmendra Kumar, earlier filed a Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2016 which was withdrawn after some arguments with liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action.

The complainant, thereafter, filed a consumer complaint on the same cause of action before the State Commission, Delhi. The said complaint was dismissed in limine by the State Commission on the premise that the sum total of the relief claimed was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The complainant filed a review petition alleging that the State Commission has committed an inadvertent error by considering the relief under the head, "Discount" of Rs.25,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,50,000/-. The State Commission, however, dismissed the review petition vide order dated 21-04-2016 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to review its own order.

Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission the complainant filed an appeal being Appeal No.517 of 2016. Single member bench of this Commission vide order dated 28-06-2016 disposed of the appeal giving opportunity to the complainant to work-out his claim and file a fresh complaint before the proper consumer fora having pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the instant complaint has been filed in which the value of the complaint for the purpose of jurisdiction is shown as Rs.1,26,53,589/- as per the following chart:

"Particulars of Relief prayed Valuation for jurisdiction

A. Direction to the opposite parties to handover possession of the flat and Rs.40,14,400/-

a. Compensation of interest @20% per annum on the paid sale price of Rs.32,43,196/- with effect from the agreed date of possession (December 2008) till the date of filing the present complaint (7 yrs 6 months) Rs.48,64,794/-

b. Further compensation of a sum of Rs.15,02,395/- towards possession period extension charges in terms of letter circulated by opposite parties; Rs.15,02,395/-

c. To direct the opposite parties to give discount of Rs.2.5 lacs Rs.2,50,000/-

d. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,22,000/- as compensation towards actual rent paid by the complainant, and Rs.15,22,000/-

e. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards for harassment, humiliation, loss of time and money and mental agony caused to the complainant and cost of litigation Rs.5,00,000/-

Total Rs.1,26,53,589/-"

The complaint prima facie appears to be over-valued by making unrealistic and unreasonable claim. Therefore, we have heard the arguments on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant is seeking compensation of the flat besides the compensation as detailed in A (i, ii, iii) of the prayer clause or in the alternative payment of Rs.96,07,959/- plus 20% interest from the respective dates of payment till the filing of the complaint besides compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission with regard to the original complaints. The provision provides that National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain original complaints where value of the goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Admittedly, in the instant case as per the builder-buyer agreement the agreed value of the flat is Rs.40,14,400/-. Therefore, the value of the service agreed between the parties is Rs.40,14,400/-. Besides the aforesaid value, perusal of the prayer clause A would show that the complainant is seeking 20% interest on the payments made by him against the consideration amount from time to time. It is alleged that the interest from the date of delivery of possession till date of filing of the complaint amounts to Rs.48,64,794/- as per clause 7(i) of the agreement. Besides the aforesaid compensation the complainant is seeking compensation of Rs.15,02,395/- towards the delay in delivery of possession by the opposite party. The complainant is also seeking compensation towards the rental paid by him for his residential accommodation on account of non-delivery of possession by the opposite party by the stipulated date. Once the complainant has sought compensation in terms of interest at the rate of 20% per annum which obviously is unrealistic the complainant cannot escalate the amount of compensation by seeking actual rental paid or the compensation offered for delay in delivery of compensation. Thus, it is clear that the complainant has inflated the compensation amount regarding the delay in delivery of the possession. If we add the value of the service and the sum of Rs.48,64,794/- claimed as interest the total sum comes to Rs.88,79,194/-. Besides the aforesaid amount the complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as per the pre-payment discount scheme launched by the opposite party in the year 2003. If we give benefit of the aforesaid amount then also the total value of the complaint comes to Rs.93,29,194/-. Complainant has also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Even if the said benefit is granted to the complainant the total value of service plus compensation claimed is Rs.98,29,194/- which is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Thus, the instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that for the value of the service the present value of the property is to be taken into consideration which is beyond Rs.1,00,00,000/-. We do not agree with the aforesaid submission in view of the clear stipulation in Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides that for the purpose of valuation, value of the service plus the compensation demanded is to be taken into consideration.

Learned counsel for the complainant further drawn our attention to the alternative prayer B which states that opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.96,07,959/- towards the total amount of refund plus 20% interest. We do not find any rationale for the aforesaid alternative relief.

In view of the above discussion the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission and the same is hereby rejected. The complainant, however, shall be at liberty to file the same complaint before the State Commission which has jurisdiction to try this case.