In this post we will discuss about a Consumer Complaint against Motia Developers Pvt Ltd. wherein it was held that the Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of goods i.e. flat was Rs.75,20,290/- and adding all the claimed amounts in prayer, it exceeded One Crore which comes under Pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission.
Also Read- Real Estate Regulatory Authority – RERA Punjab
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Consumer Redressal Commission
In this post, we will cover the pecuniary jurisdiction of a State Consumer Redressal Commission.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted in 1986 by the Indian Government. Before the enactment of this Act, there were no specific laws in India for the protection of consumers. Consumer Protection Act is based on the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor. Caveat Emptor is a Latin term the literal meaning of which is “let the buyer beware”.
Section 6 of the Act provides 6 rights to the consumers which are as following :
- Right to be protected.
- Right to be informed.
- Right to be assured.
- Right to be heard.
- Right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices.
- Right to consumer education.
Section 9 of the Act talks about establishment of 3 dispute redressal agencies namely
- National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
- State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
- District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
Also Read- Consumer Commission jurisdiction not ‘driven out’ by RERA
The Act also prescribes the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of the redressal commission. Section 11 deals with the jurisdiction of the District forum, Section 17 deals with the jurisdiction of the State forum and Section 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the National Commission.
Territorial jurisdiction means the jurisdiction of the Court regarding a specific geographical area, and the Pecuniary Jurisdiction means the jurisdiction of the Court regarding the amount of the dispute.
Also Read- Dr. Parveen Marken v. M/s Motia Developers Private Ltd
Initially, when the Act was enacted, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commissions was as following :
District Commission :- Upto Rs. 5 lakhs
State Commission :- Exceeding Rs. 5 lakh but not exceeding Rs. 25 lakh
National Commission :- Exceeding Rs. 25 lakh
Also Read- MOTIA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BALJINDER KAUR …
But in 2002, an amendment was made in the Act and the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed. By this Act, the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction was also amended and the revised amounts are as following :-
District Commission :- Upto Rs. 20 lakhs
State Commission :- Exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs but not exceeding Rs. 1 crores
National Commission :- Exceeding Rs. 1 crores.
Also Read- Gaurav Gaur vs Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 8 January, 2020
Timeline of the case
14/11/2019 : Complaint instituted in the State Commission.
4/12/2019 : Complainant withdraws the complaint.
20/12/2019 : Complaint filed in the State Commission for condonation of the delay.
08/01/2020 : Order of the Commission.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
Facts of the case
Complainant – Gaurav Gaur
Opposite party – Motia Developers Pvt Ltd.
Complainant filed a case in the Punjab State Consumer Redressal Commission u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The contentions of the complaint are as following :-
- Complainant filed the application for condoning the delay of 63 days in filing the complaint as he was not in a correct state of mind because his mother was admitted in the PGI in the last week of July 2019 as she was not keeping a good health and she required constant attention and care.
- Complainant along with his family members was residing in Flat No.2, Tower No.2, Motiaz Royal Citi, Zirakpur for the last 4 years.
- His parents bought the house by paying an amount of Rs.75,20,290/- on some terms and conditions. It was mentioned in the terms and conditions that the complainant had to pay regularly maintenance charges of the Society to the opposite party.
- He had been paying all sorts of maintenance charges during his stay.
- Opposite party had been deficient in providing various activities/facilities for which the complainant was entitled to against payment of maintenance charges.
- Due to deficiency in service of the opposite party, complainant and his family had to suffer the loss of life of complainant’s sister, who died due to suffering from dengue.
- The complainant was also affected by dengue attack and hospitalized for 7 days and was discharged on 23.10.2017 and due to his critical condition, he missed last rites of his sister.
- Public Health Officials conducted an inspection in the nearby area of the residence of the complainant and Civil Surgeon, SAS Nagar stated that Flat No.1, Tower No.2 had a large amount of water stagnation and larva of Ades Mosquitoes and it was under the lock and as per terms and conditions of the possession letter, it was the duty of the opposite party to maintain proper sanitation in the locality.
- The complainant was paying Rs.5,500/- per month to opposite party as maintenance charges and his case was based on the said maintenance charges only.
Also Read- Deepinder Kaur v Motia Developers Pvt. Ltd
The complainant claimed :
- all the damages amounting to Rs.70,00,000 lakhs for the loss of life suffered by the complainant that includes the entire computation of the future aspects of the deceased sister of the complainant, medical allowances, mental agony and torture that the complainant and his family had to undergo.
- compensation amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- for all the injuries he faced personally along with the mental agony, torture and medical allowances that were incurred by the complainant at that time.
- enhanced compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for immense inconvenience, loss of work, day to day mental agony, torture and harassment for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not maintaining proper sanitation within the Society.
- 25,000/- as litigation expenses being born by the complainant unnecessarily.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST JINDAL REALTY (P) LIMITED SONEPAT
Order of the Commission
- A part of the claim of the complainant in thecomplaint did not relate to the goods and services. The claim was based on the loss suffered by the complainant on account of deceased sister of the complainant, which is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Compensation of injuries is a remedy under law of torts and not under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of goods i.e. flat was Rs.75,20,290/- and adding all the claimed amounts in prayer, it exceeded One Crore. (Pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission)
- The Commission also held that even for the purposes of deficiency in services,the only appropriate remedy was before the Civil Court because evidence was required to be led in that case, which was not applicable in the summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
- The complaint was dismissed as withdrawn.
Also Read- Amit Kumar Arora vs Motia Developers Private Limited
Judgements in the case of Pecuniary jurisdiction of the commissions
In the case of SK Plastic vs National Insurance Company, (First Appeal No. 50 of 2008
), The appellant had insured his stock for Rs. 25 lakh with the respondent. His stock was destroyed due to the fire, and the surveyor appointed by the respondent made the assessment of the loss as Rs. 5,68,885 and the respondent deposited the cheque of the same amount in the account of the appellant. The appellant went to the District Consumer Commission Amritsar and prayed for the compensation of the remaining balance of Rs. 19,31,115 along with interest @12% per annum plus Rs. 50 thousand as compensation for the mental harassment plus 10 thousand for litigation expenses. The Commission dismissed the complaint stating that the amount of claim was Rs. 24,60,000 and hence, it was not under their pecuniary jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this, the appellant appealed in the State Commission and the State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission by stating that the District Forum had added the amount of interest in the claim which is against the general practice and the actual amount of claim would be 19,91,115 which would make the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission.
ALSO READ- SINGLA BUILDERS PROMOTERS SBP CONSUMER COMPLAINT IN STATE COMMISSION PUNJAB
Conclusion
There is no hard and fast rule of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in the cases of consumer disputes. However, it should be kept in mind that the amount claimed should be related to the goods and services. The amount of claim can be determined by the commission, but in case the commission does not go with the general practice and the order is not in the favour, one can always approach to the higher authority and seek remedy.
Also Read- Rajesh Kumar v. Motia Construction Ltd.
This post is written by Paryag Taneja.
For case specific advice, one may contact best/top consumer court lawyer advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali.
More on 99888-17966
