Harbinder Pal Singh vs M/S. Angel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

This complaint has been filed by the complainant Harbinder Pal Singh against the opposite party, M/s. Angel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant booked a flat on 11.10.2012 bearing Unit No.A-0701 in Florence Estate Sector 70,

Gurgaon. The total consideration of the flat was Rs.1,03,50,750/-. The complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.21,34,117/-. It has been alleged by the

complainant that opposite parties cancelled the allotment on 11.06.2015 without any reason. The complainant did not get the information of this

cancellation, but came to know of the same when he contacted the office of the opposite parties on 28.05.2017. The complainant sent a legal notice

however, he has received no response. Hence the present complaint has been filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage.

The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the total consideration of the flat was Rs.1,03,50,750/- and the complainant has paid

Rs.21,34,117/-. The opposite parties have cancelled the allotment without any reason and no money has been refunded by the opposite parties. Hence

the present complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-

“a. This Hon’ble commission direct the opposite party/developer to refund the amount already deposited with the opposite party/developer

namely Rs.21,34,117/- along with interest @ 18% compounded bi-annually:

b. Award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation charges for having forced the complainant to approach this Hon’ble Forum:

and

c. Award an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as penal charges on account of deficiency in service as shown by the

opposite party or pass any other order.â€​

It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum is to be decided on the basis of the total

consideration as agreed between the parties as held by the larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish

Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC). As in the present complaint, the total consideration is more

than rupees one crore, hence, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint in question.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the record. This

Commission has decided the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (supra). The same judgment in para 15

while giving the gist of answers to various questions, mentions the following:-

“15. Issue No. iii

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the 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 the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.â€​

From the above it is clear that the consideration paid at the time of hiring of the service of the opposite party may also decide the pecuniary

jurisdiction in certain cases, particularly in cases of refund where no further amount is to be paid. In the present case only Rs.21,34,117/- has been

paid and therefore, looking from this angle this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The value of

consideration as per the definition of “consumer†given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes “partly paid and

partly promisedâ€. Thus, in case of refund of the amounts paid to the opposite party/builder, there would only be the element of “partly paid†and

the element of “promised to be paidâ€​ would be missing.

Thus, the consideration in a case of refund would only mean the amount paid and therefore, consideration paid in the above quoted observation in the

decision of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (supra) could be only the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party and this shall decide the

pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum. Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of

goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement. Thus, the

value of service in a complaint case seeking refund of the paid amount would be limited to the amount paid whose refund has been sought.

Based on the above consideration, it is clear that in the present case even if total refund of Rs.21,34,117/- is taken into consideration along with

interest @18% p.a. and compensation demanded, the total figure does not cross the limit of Rupees One Crore. Hence, this Commission does not

have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

On the basis of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the

complainant to file the consumer complaint before the concerned State Commission, which shall decide the complaint on merits. The time for

pendency of the complaint before this Commission shall not be counted for the purposes of limitation.