Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
Muneesh Malhotra —Complainant
versus
M/s ERA Land Marks (India) Ltd. —Opp.Party
Consumer Case No.1268 of 2015
Decided on 15.12.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:In person Alongwtih, Mr. Manoj Upadhyay, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant can claim compensation by applying different yard sticks simultaneously.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(a)(i)—Real estate—Denial of possession of flat— Complainant has paid total sum of Rs.19,96,114 against consideration price—For delay in delivery of possession, he can be paid compensation to extent of 18% p.a. on deposited amount but complainant has deliberately tried to increase quantum of compensation by putting it under different heads to inflate jurisdictional value—By no standard complainant can claim compensation by applying different yard sticks simultaneously—Value of complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction comprises of value of goods or services and compensation— In view of Section 21(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, instant complaint does not fall within pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission—Instant complaint has been filed with clear attempt to inflate value of relief which amounts to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit hierarchy of Consumer Fora—Complaint dismissed with liberty to complainant to file fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Fora. (Paras 10, 11, 14 to 17)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—The scheme of Consumer Protection Act provides for the hierarchy of Consumer Foras, namely, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Act has specifically demarcated the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras at aforesaid three levels to entertain the original consumer complaint. Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lacs. Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Act provides that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lacs but does not exceed rupees one crore. Section 21(a)(i) of the Act provides that National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, exceeds rupees one crore.
2. Recently we have experienced a trend where the complainants with a view to short circuit the system and defeat the hierarchy of the system, file the consumer complaints with inflated claims with a view to bring the cases within the jurisdiction of National Commission. This practice needs to be curbed out because it encourages forum shopping and also tend to short circuit the procedure for disposal of complaint. The instant complaint is also an example where the complainant has filed the complaint with an inflated claim with a view to directly file the consumer complaint in the National Commission against the spirit and object of the Act.
3. Muneesh Malhotra, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint against the opposite party M/s Era Land Marks (India) Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of a flat booked by the complainant in the project undertaken by the opposite party. The complainant has sought following reliefs:
“(a) Direct the opposite to hand over the possession of Unit No. C71, Block C, 7th Floor Era Redwood Regency Sector 78 Faridabad Haryana”
(b) In the alternative direct the opposite party to pay the current market value of unit no.C71 Block C, 7th Floor Era Redwood Regency Sector 78 Faridabad Haryana i.e. Rs.8,000 per sq. ft. i.e. Rs.1,17,60,000.
(c) pass an order in favour of the complainant directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,000 as compensation @ 5 per sq. ft. as mentioned in clause 11.4 till the handing over of the possession of unit C71, block C, 7th floor Era Redwood Regency Sector 78, Faridabad Haryana;
(d) direct opposite party to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.19,96,114 from 14.9.2010 to 14.9.2015 i.e. Rs.17,96,502;
(e) direct the opposite party to pay the loss of rental income @ Rs.25,000 per month from 14.9.2010 to 14.9.2015 i.e. Rs.15,00,000;
(f) the complainant also seeking compensation on account of their mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs.25,00,000;
(g) further pay a sum of Rs.25 lacs as cost for the present litigation;
(h) any other order (s) as this Court may deem fit and necessary”
4. I have heard arguments on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
5. Before adverting to the submissions of learned counsel for the complainants, it would be useful to have a look on Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), which deals with the original jurisdiction of the National Commission to entertain the complaints. Section 21(a)(i) of the Act, reads as under:
“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission— Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore.”
6. On reading of the above it is clear that National Comm
