Inderjit Singh Ruprai vs M/s. Accord Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 21.1.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in CC No. CC/00/338 - Indrajit Singh Ruprai v. M/s. Accord Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, complaint was partly allowed.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant executed unregistered agreement on 30/05/1996 with opponents/Respondent builder/developer for purchase of 2 BHK flat for the total consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/-. Thereafter, at the request of the complainant, the said agreement was mutually cancelled and fresh registered agreement dated 10/08/1999 for 1 BHK flat was executed between the parties. In the first mentioned agreement, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as part consideration which was adjusted in the second agreement against the agreed cost of Rs. 11,00,000/- for 1 BHK. Complainant availed loan facility from the Bank for Rs. 8,00,000/- to meet expenses of balance consideration of the flat against mortgage of the flat. However, he failed to refund the loan amount and therefore, Bank intimated the opponents builder for settlement of loan along with interest. Opponents builder has settled the loan account of the complainant by paying amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- and created third party right by registered agreement dated 05/11/2003 to sell the said flat for lesser amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- only. Since the possession of the flat was not delivered and performance was not carried out, the complainant originally prayed for possession or in the alternative market price of similar flat and interest @ 20% p.a. on Rs. 11 lakhs along with refund of registration fee Rs. 80,000/- and compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs. Thereafter, the complainant moved an amendment application in the year 2010 which was allowed by this Commission carried out amendment in the prayer clause for directions for delivery of peaceful possession of the flat along with interest @20% p.a. on Rs. 11,00,000/-. Refund of Rs. 80,000/- registration fees and alternatively if possession not delivered then market price based on the ready reckoner which according to the complainant comes to Rs. 43,14,705/-.

OP resisted complaint and submitted that State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this consumer complaint, since complaint is filed on 11/09/2000 with total compensation of Rs. 31,80,000/- in addition to interest @20% p.a. on amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-. At the time of filing this consumer complaint, pecuniary jurisdiction in the year 2000 was limited to Rs. 20 lacs, whereas the complainant claimed more than Rs. 20 lacs by way of relief. Other grounds as contended by the opponents are that transaction was never meant for purchase of the flat for residential purpose, since it was an arrangement between the parties for commercial transaction and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with 9% p.a. interest to the complainant from 11.9.2000 along with cost of Rs. 25,000/- against which, this appeal has been filed by complainant. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission without appreciating facts committed error in allowing complaint partly whereas complainant was entitled to receive possession of flat or in the alternative market price of the flat along with compensation; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

The core question to be decide in this appeal is whether State Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaint.

Learned State commission while dealing with pecuniary jurisdiction observed as under: "Admittedly, original complaint filed by the complainant on 11/09/2000 which was prior to amendment to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission. Total monetary claim works out to Rs. 41,15,000/- inclusive of interest. Then prevailing pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 20 lacs. However, complainant sought an amendment to the complaint in the year 2010 which was permitted by this State Commission on 22/10/2010. By this amendment, the complainant claimed delivery of peaceful possession of the flat along with interest @20% p.a. on Rs. 11,00,000/-. Refund of Rs. 80,000/- registration fees along with interest @20% p.a. [Rs. 2,26,485/-] and alternatively if possession not delivered then market price based on the ready reckoner which according to the complainant comes to Rs. 43,14,705/- and interest @20% p.a. on Rs. 11,00,000/- paid to the opponents i.e. Rs. 30,80,000/- which comes to Rs. 76,21,190/-. Amendment order has achieved finality since it has not been challenged. Therefore, by amending the consumer complaint now is well within the competence of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. Therefore, arguments of the opponents that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction are not sustainable".

Admittedly, when complaint was filed by complainant on 11.9.2000, his total claim was for Rs. 41,15,000/-. Learned State Commission also observed that pecuniary jurisdiction of learned State Commission was limited to Rs. 20 lakhs. By amendment dated 15.3.2003, pecuniary jurisdiction of learned Station Commission has been increased and from this date complaint exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs but not exceeding Rs. 1 crore was maintainable before the learned State Commission whereas upto 14.3.2003 complaint exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs but not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs was maintainable before State Commission. When complaint for total compensation of Rs. 41,15,000/- was not entertain able by learned State Commission on 11.9.2000, learned State Commission committed error in entertaining complaint and assuming jurisdiction to decide the complaint and further committed error in allowing amendment in the year 2010 regarding amount of compensation.

When learned State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which was entertain able only by the National Commission, impugned order is liable to set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has not discussed any judgment cited by the complainant, though, it ought to have discussed judgments and distinguished them. But, as I am of the opinion that learned State Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, I need not to express my opinion on merits of the case which may prejudice to the parties in future litigation, if any.

Impugned order has not been challenged by OP and in appeal filed by the complainant himself, impugned order cannot be set aside by this Commission in Appellate jurisdiction, though, impugned order is without jurisdiction of learned State Commission.

In such circumstances, there is no question of enhancement of compensation and appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed, but at the same time, opportunity is also to be given to complainant for filing complaint before appropriate forum if complainant remits back benefits received under impugned order.

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with liberty to the appellant to file complaint before appropriate forum only after returning benefits, if any, received under impugned order from respondent. Parties to bear their costs. Appeal dismissed.