IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint held not maintainable for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

ORDER

This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Parkash Kaur against the opposite party Everest Construction Company alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant booked a flat with the opposite party in the year 1981 by paying 5% of the total consideration amount which was Rs.2,32,875. The agreement was signed between the parties on 13.10.1981.The complainant then paid Rs.50,000 to the opposite party on 28.12.1987, however, the same was returned by the opposite party vide letter dated 28.01.1988 by challenging the validity of the agreement itself. The complainant then filed a civil suit being suit No.82/1989 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking relief of declaration inter-alia that the agreement dated 13.10.1981 be declared as operative and binding on the parties. On 15.04.1991, the Hon’ble High Court restrained the respondent from completing the sale or transferring or alienating the flat in question. Delhi High Court transferred the case to Tis Hazari District Court in Delhi on account of increase in pecuniary jurisdiction. As late as in the year 2019, the Civil Court dismissed the civil suit on 16.11.2019 as non-maintainable on the ground that the complainant had not prayed for possession/specific performance of the agreement and had simply sought declaration. Now the complainant is availing the jurisdiction of this Commission. The following prayers have been made in the complaint.

“(a) direct Respondent, its partners, agents, assignees and transferees to deliver to the Complainant vacant and peaceful possession of the Apartment/Flat of the carpet area 1035 sq.ft. (Carpet area) in the building to be constructed on Final Plot bearing No.1074 of Town Planning Scheme IV, Mahim and Cadestral Survey No.1104 [Part] of Lower Parel Division situate at Prabhadevi, Bombay;

(b) in the alternative, pay an amount of Rs.4.43 Crores being the value of the Flat as per the government published Ready Reckoner price;

(c) in the alternative to prayer (a) & (b), grant the market value of the Flat as on the date of filing of the complaint/passing of the order to enable the Complainant to purchase the Flat of equivalent area in the nearby vicinity;

(d) pass any other order or direction that may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;”

3. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that this Commission has got the pecuniary jurisdiction to consider the present complaint as the present value of the flat would have been more than Rs.4.00 crores which is clear from the complaint where it has been mentioned that the value of the flat as per circle rate of the government is Rs.4.43 crores. It has also been mentioned that the opposite party in its reply filed in 2008 before the civil court has admitted that the value of the flat is more than Rs.2.00 crores and therefore, it is certain that the value of the flat is definitely more than Rs.1.00 crore which is sufficient to avail the jurisdiction of this Commission. The learned counsel also argued that compensation demanded is to be considered along with the value of the service to avail the jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum. In the present case, the compensation is in the form of the increased value of the flat as per the market value or as per the government circle rate and therefore if value of the flat is considered as compensation, then this Commission definitely has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65 to impress that compensation for a person who does not get possession is more as compared to a person who gets the possession. The learned counsel referred to the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case:-