Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Shall Include Consideration Plus Compensation and Interest – NCDRC
National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum in the case Ambrish Kumar Shukla and ors. Vs. Ferrous
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016
has elaborately elucidated the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum wherein
the Single Bench referred
issues raised by it to the Larger Bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission to be decided. The larger bench further came
up with the assumption that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction the
value of the goods or services, as the case may be is to be considered and not
the value or cost of removing that deficiency in the service, further the commission
also notified that the interest claimed is to be taken into consideration for
the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
FACTS
OF THE CASE
The complainant
have booked an apartment with respondent No.1 (builder), Ferrous Infrastructures
based on the reason that the balance sale consideration was not paid by the
complainant the allotment was cancelled by the builder, being aggrieved, the
complainant approached the concerned consumer District Forum seeking
restoration of the flat with possession and compensation.
The Respondent
contested the complaint and filed preliminary objection that the particular
complaint does not fall within the purview of the District consumer forum for
not having the pecuniary jurisdiction, the district consumer forum noticed that
the price of the apartment exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district
consumer forum, dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 22.01.2013.
On
fresh complaint being filed before the State Commission, the State Commission dismissed
the complaint after noticing that the claim of the complainant was Rs.10,00,000/-
as compensation, further opined that while
deciding whether the said Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the
complaint or not, the complainant has to assess the deficiency in the service
availed by him and not the actual value of the flat.
Being aggrieved by the order of the state commission,
the complainant has approached National Consumer Redressal Forum wherein the
single member bench of this forum after noticing a variance in opinion expressed
by the district and state consumer forum on the same subject, raised the issues
on pecuniary jurisdiction and referred the same to a larger Bench vide its
order dated 11.03.2016.
ISSUES RAISED
The single Member
Bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated
11.08.2016 referred the following issues to the larger Bench:
- In a situation,
where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the
complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies
are pointed out in the construction/ development of the property, whether the
pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property
as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the
purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.
- Whether the
interest claimed on such value by way of compensation or otherwise, is to be
taken into account for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular
consumer forum.
- Whether “the value
of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed” is to be taken as
per the original value of such goods, or service at the time of purchase of
such goods or hiring or availing of such service, OR such value is to be taken
at the time of filing the claim, in question.
- In complaints
proposed to be filed under section 12(1)(c) of the Act with the permission of
Consumer Forum, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined taking
the value of goods or service for individual consumer, OR the aggregate value
of the properties of all consumers getting together to file the consumer
complaint is to be taken into consideration.
- For filing the
consumer complaints u/s 12(1)(c), whether a group of cooperative societies
could join hands to file a joint complaint.
- Whether the term
‘consumer’ given in section 12(1)(c) includes the term ‘Person’ as defined in
section 2(m) of the Act, meaning thereby that groups of firms, societies,
association, etc. could join hands to file the joint complaints, u/s 12(1)(c)
of the Act.
- Many a time, it is
seen that more than one joint complaint are already pending in respect of one
particular housing project. There is a view that while applying section
12(1)(c) of the Act, only one of these complaints should be allowed to continue
as a lead case, and all other complaints should be dismissed and the parties in
these dismissed complaints should be directed to become parties in the lead
case. Whether the above view is correct, OR in such cases, all complaints
should be clubbed and heard together.
OBSERVATION
On observing, the
larger bench of the NCDRC gave reference over the issues raised by the single
member bench stating on perusal of sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer
Protection Act it is clear that determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of
the consumer forum is based on the value of the goods or services together with
the compensation claimed and not on the cost of removing the deficiency in
goods purchased or services hired.
While deciding for
the issue No. 2 larger bench relying on observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh1, gave
reference based on the provisions contained in Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the
Consumer Protection Act that the amount of the interest which can be paid as
compensation, must be necessarily taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary
jurisdiction.,
While looking into
the issue no. 3 larger bench decided that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Consumer Forum varies with the market price of the goods or services initially
when the goods purchased or services availed and at the time the complaint is
instituted. On the other hand, no such difficulty arises if the sale consideration
agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or
services determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
The issue No. 4, the
aggregate value of the goods purchased or the services availed by all the
consumers together filing the complaint added to the total compensation claimed
would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and not the
claim of the individual consumer.
Deciding on issue
no. 5 & 6 larger bench of NCDRC held that a complaint under the Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only by one or more consumers
and a Cooperative Society is not entitled to file a complaint under Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act unless the cooperative society itself
is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Whereas on issue
no. 7, NCDRC was with the view that the Act does not appreciate more than one
complaints on behalf of consumers in a representative character. The complaint filed in a representative
capacity will bind all the consumers as provided under Order I Rule 8(6) of the
Code of Civil Procedure and the second complaint having the same interest and
seeking same relief would not be maintainable under the section 12(1)(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act.
DECISION
BY NCDRC
Based on the reference on all the issues raised by
the single member bench of the NCDRC the larger bench has passed the decision
as follows:
1. It is the value of the goods or services, as the
case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the
service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary
jurisdiction of national commission.
2. The interest has to be taken into account for the
purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer court.
3. 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.
4. In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c)
of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined
on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services
hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the
complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such
consumers.
5. A complaint filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act can be instituted only by one or more consumers, as
defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, a group
of Cooperative societies, Firms, Association or other Society cannot file such
a complaint unless such society etc. itself is a consumer as defined in the
aforesaid provision.
6. More than one complaints under Section 12(1)(c)
of the Consumer Protection Act are not maintainable on behalf of or for the
benefit of consumers having the same interest i.e. a common grievance and
seeking the same / identical against the same person. In case more than one such complaints have
been instituted, it is only the complaint instituted first under Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, with the requisite permission of the
Consumer Forum, which can continue and the remaining complaints filed under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act are liable to be dismissed with
liberty to join in the complaint instituted first with the requisite permission
of the Consumer Forum.
CONCLUSION:
“In the first blush, if we look into the ratio of the judgment, referred to above, it appears that except State Commission and National Commission for Dispute Redressal, District Commission will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any of the complaint regarding the property issues. Further, on deep analysis, judgment in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla2 (supra) was rendered by Three Judges Bench of the National Commission, without reference to its earlier view on the subject. The issue that for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission whether interest need to be added with other relief claimed came up for consideration before the Three Judges Bench of the National Commission in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.,3 and further this Commission, in the case of Surjit Singh Thadwal Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. and another4, by relying upon the ratio of judgment in Shahbad’s case5, held that when determining pecuniary jurisdiction component of interest claimed is not to be added in the relief sought, which is contradictory to the judgement in the present case. It was further necessary to mention that though this present case overrules Shahbad’s case but the issue continues to persist as the interest should not be allowed to decide the jurisdiction at the earlier stage because that shall create a anarchy to decide the jurisdiction. The inclusion of interest should remain at the discretion of the particular Consumer Fora, and the stage for exercise of such discretion would be the time, when final order is passed.
Contributed By – Latha Shanmugam
Designation – Associate
Footnote:
1. Ghaziabad
Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh MANU/SC/0282/2004 : (2004) 5 SCC 65
2. Ambrish
Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (07.10.2016 – NCDRC)
: MANU/CF/0499/2016
3. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar
Mills vs National Insurance Co. Ltd II
(2003) CPJ 81 NC
4. Surjit Singh Thadwal Vs. M/s Emaar MGF
Land Pvt. Ltd. and another, Consumer Case no. 484 of 2016 decided on
15.12.2016,
5. Ibid
King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys
New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com
By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.