RAMKISAN RAMCHANDRA KHOBRAGADE vs MANOJ SHRIPAD PIMPALPURE

WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and on consideration of the material available before us. WE think it also unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent-Org. O.P. in this appeal since the record shows he did not appear or participate in the complaint proceeding before the District Forum and secondly, the District Forum has proceeded to dispose of the complaint by dismissing it on technical ground for want of pecuniary jurisdiction which is not justified. FEW RELEVANT FACTS :

(FOR brevity''s sake appellant is hereinafter referred to as ''Complainant'' and respondent as ''OP''. The complainant filed a complaint against the O.P., claiming various reliefs alleging deficiency in the matter of construction of the flat. It is noticed that in paragraph 6 of the complaint, complainant has given the particulars of the claim aggregating to Rs. 4,97,157/- and has expressly stated that the claim of the complaint made by him will be to the extent of the said amount only.

Furthermore, in prayer (a) of the complaint, the complainant has claimed the relief to the extent of the said amount with interest.

DISTRICT Forum probably because of the claim of interest on the amount of the claim held that total claim of the complainant would exceed the sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs, which is the pecuniary limit (as was the position prior to amendment) and with that view has proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the complaint. With respect to the District Forum, it needs to be pointed out that its perception about computation of the claim for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction is not correct and is not tenable in law as well. It is well settled principle of law and the Rules of procedure and pleadings that the jurisdiction of any Judicial Forum which can also be extended to Consumer Fora as well is to be determined on the basis of averments and claims as made in the complaint on the date of institution of the claim by the complainant and future benefits to be accrued by way of interest, etc. are not to be added in such claims.

WE wish to elaborate and reiterate that it is well accepted as also settled principle that ordinarily the value put up by the plaintiff in his suit (in the case herein the complainant in his complaint) that prima facie determines the pecuniary jurisdiction. Forum of suits depends upon the value stated in the plaint when filed/lodged. It is however necessary that the plaintiff should value relief by fair estimate and jurisdiction depends upon such valuation. WE think it appropriate to give example of suit filed for rendition of account and profit before Court of lowest grade competent to try the suit, which, as is well known, in final decree stage, can grant a decree beyond its pecuniary limit. This is because want of pecuniary jurisdiction is not considered as a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction, and, it is pertinent to note that this principle is incorporated in newly added Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment in 1976). The want of pecuniary jurisdiction thus is no longer an inherent lack of jurisdiction and so liberally interpreted and construed after the said amendment (Refer AIR 1984 Punjab P. 345, Ramesh Chander v. Bhusanlal). To sum up, lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, therefore, is no longer an inherent lack of jurisdiction. If the Forum has power under the particular Statute to entertain causes of a particular category or nature, such Forum does not lack jurisdiction inherent. Coming to the case in hand, the dispute essentially pertains or concerns in relation to the flat which complainant has agreed to purchase from the O.P. As such same would fall under the category of dispute of Housing Construction which would be within purview of Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being kind of service and as such, would squarely fall under the purview of Consumer Fora. District Forum Nagpur has otherwise jurisdiction to try and entertain the said dispute.

FURTHER, for good reason Court or Forum finds that it has no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to try the suit/cause, proper order is not dismissal but returning of plaint/complaint for presentation in proper Court/Forum. (Refer AIR 1993 SC page 2094, RSDV Finance Co. v. Shree Valechha Class). Thus order of dismissal of complaint, as is the case, is not justified.

WE have been receiving several matters decided by the District Forum in the State with a view as above, which is not justified as also sustainable under the law. The same only results in causing inconvenience as also financial loss to the consumer litigants. WE expect and hope that the District Forums shall take notice of the correct legal position as indicated herein above in the matter of such nature. With these observations, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and restore the Complaint being No. 439/2001 on the file of Nagpur for its consideration afresh on merits. Hence the following order : ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 21st October, 2002 is set aside and complaint is restored to the file of District Forum Nagpur. 2. District Forum Nagpur is directed to dispose of the complaint on the footing that it has jurisdiction to entertain the same in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules and on providing proper opportunities to the parties. 3. District Forum shall issue its fresh process to the O.P. in the complaint under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. The appellant''s Advocate is directed to furnish copies of this order to the District Forum Nagpur as also to the O.P. 5. Appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 6. Office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties. 7. Office is directed to circulate copies of this judgment to all the District Forums in the State.

Appeal allowed.