Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member
M/s. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
And Ors. Appellants
versus
Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Apartments
and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.376 and 387 of 2022
(Against the Order dated 02.05.2022 in EA/158/2021 in Complaint No. 1/2021 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 29.4.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal against order of State Commission – Services – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – A complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same/identical relief against the same person. Such a complaint however, shall not be deemed to have been filed on behalf of or for the benefit of the consumers who have already filed individual complaints before the requisite permission in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is accorded – Also, for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the value of the consideration paid for goods or services should be considered. The recent notification of the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, further reinforces this point – This notification aligns with the principles outlined in the Act and provides clarity on the jurisdictional limits for different levels of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. It is undisputed that the consideration in question for the sale of flats of the project of the complainant far exceeds the Rs.10 Dr prescribed under the Act, 2019. In addition, the complainant alleged that the Ops collected IFMS from all allottees, despite no legal basis and it amounted to about to Rs.2.75 crore. There is also a material dispute with respect to the school property which by itself also far exceeds Rs.10 Cr. There are also associated disputes with respect to compliances and services – On facts, as per the law established under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the precedents established the learned State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Therefore, the order of the learned State Commission dated 18.06.2021 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed – Appeal disposed off. [Paras 8 to 16]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—FA No. 376/2022 has been filed by Opposite Parties (Ops) under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”), challenging the Order dated 18.06.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (“State Commission”) in CC No. 01 of 2021, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint. FA No. 387 of 2022 has been filed by Ops under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019 is against the Order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the State Commission in Execution Application No. 158 of 2021, arising from CC No. 01 of 2021 dated 18.06.2021. By the impugned order in EA, the State Commission directed the Judgment Debtors (JDs) to comply with its Order dated 18.06.2021 passed in CC No. 01/2021 and issued Bailable Warrants for a sum of Rs.5,00,000 with one surety of the like amount against the JDs.
2. The main facts and questions of law involved in both the First Appeals, except for specific details, are similar and thus both the Appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Therefore, FA No. 376 of 2022 is being treated as the lead case.
3. For convenience, parties in the present Appeal are being referred to as stated in the complaint i.e. M/s. SMV Agencies/OP-1 is now Appellant No. 1 Shri Suryakant Jaipuria/OP-2 is now Appellant No. 2, Shri Rajkumar Ramrakhiyani/OP-3 is now Appellant No. 3, Shri Chaitanya Jaipuria/ OP-4 is now Appellant No. 4, Smt. Shreepriya Jaipuria/ OP-5 is now Appellant No. 5, Shri Vaibhav Jaipuria/ OP-6 is now Appellant No. 6 and Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Apartment/Complainant is now Respondent herein.
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the matter pertains to a residential project named “Jaipuria Sunrise Greens” located at VIP Road, Zirakpur, commended in 2006. The project comprises of a multistorey apartment complexes spread over 20 acres, with additional two acres to connecting roads linking the complex to Zirakpur-Patiala highway. The project has a total of 971 apartments, comprising 882 units 3 BHK and 2 BHK apartments and 89 EWS apartments. Initially, the OP promised possession by 2008. But, due to delays in obtaining pre-construction approvals from Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MOEFCC), Govt. of Punjab, the construction got delayed until 2012, with possession subsequently delivered in stages from 2012 onwards. However, the OP was unable to procure the Completion Certificate until 17.08.2015 and failed to obtain Occupation Certificate in Form-F, mandated by the Gazette Notifications dated 07.07.2015 and 22.11.2018 issued by the State of Punjab, till the filing of the complaint. The builder charged a total of about Rs.2,81,00,000 as Interest-Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) from various allottees without explicit legal backing. Of this, receipts for Rs.1,12,22,070 are available and brought on record. The Allotment Letter dated 02.09.2015 to Shri Kewal Krishan Sharma, under Clause-14, explicitly mentioned the obligation of depositing IFMS @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft. of super area, along with an advance of one year’s maintenance charges. The agreement stipulated monthly maintenance charges payable within 30 days of demand, with a penalty of 18% interest for delays, and allowed recovery from IFMS in case of defaults. The complainant, a Welfare Association formed by Apartment Owners sought the OP vide letter dated 20.11.2016 to hand over records of statutory compliances. Subsequently, during negotiations mediated by the SDM Derabassi, the OP agreed to refund IFMS with interest as indicated vide letter dated 05.11.2018. However, despite promises, no refund was provided. Instead, OP sent a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which contained unreasonable conditions, such as transferring maintenance responsibilities without handing over IFMS amount and without completing statutory works. The Association objected and a formal complaint was filed before the SDM, Derabassi. The OP later proposed
Pecuniary jurisdiction – For the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the value of the consideration paid for goods or services should be consid....
Joint Complaint – Need for application of Order I Rule 8 of CPC would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of 1986 Act – It does not have any application when simil....
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under CP Act, 2019 is determined solely by the value of consideration paid for goods or services & not by value of goods or services t....
The 'value of consideration paid' is the determinant for pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, not the total value of goods or services.
Individuals are permitted to file separate complaints under the Consumer Protection Act without needing to seek permission for class actions.
The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Redressal Commission is determined by the value of goods or services with respect to specific deficiencies claimed, not by the total transaction value.
Unilateral change of allotted unit without consent constitutes deficiency in service; District Forum has jurisdiction based on claimed refund amount, not total unit value; onus on opposite party to p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
