Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3182
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER
M/s. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Surya Kant Jaipuria, Sh. Raj Kumar Ramrakhiyani, Sh. Chaitanya Jaipuria, Smt. Shreepriya Jaipuria, Sh. Vaibhav Jaipuria – Appellant
Versus
Jaipuria Sunrise Greens Apartments Owners Welfare Association – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2022 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Mr. Saurabh Karan Singh, Mr. Saurabh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Mr. Arjun Shukla
The pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forums is determined by the aggregate value of claims and not individual unit valuations.
Headnote:This case concerns appeals challenging orders from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The court noted that the respondent Association filed a complaint regarding delayed possession and unresolved financial disputes, leading to an order for refunds and compliance with statutory obligations. The appellants contested jurisdictional limits and compliance, asserting that the complaint exceeded the State Commission's monetary jurisdiction and involved matters best suited for civil courts. The court upheld prior decisions regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, ultimately setting aside the State Commission's orders. Key issues included whether the respondent Association had the standing to claim under consumer law and whether the monetary limits of jurisdiction were breached due to the nature of the complaint. The court reasoned that collective grievances should assess overall aggregate values to determine jurisdiction, discarding individual units' values. Therefore, the SCDRC's ruling was challenged on the basis of procedural and statutory misinterpretations. The appeals were dismissed and the orders of the State Commission set aside, granting the complainants liberty to pursue their grievances in an appropriate forum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeals arise from disputes over a residential project and alleged deficiencies in service. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. contentions regarding compliance and jurisdiction challenges are central to the appeals. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. arguments presented concerning locus standi and pecuniary jurisdiction deem important for the determination of the case. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. findings confirm that aggregate values govern jurisdiction determination, sustaining the consumer protection act's intent. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusion is reached to dismiss the appeal, allowing for liberty to pursue grievances elsewhere. (Para 16 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER
1. 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 ₹2,81,00,000 as Interest-Free Maintenance Security (IFMS) from various allottees without explicit legal backing. Of this, receipts for ₹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 @ ₹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
