Full Judgment
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member)
1. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to hand over possession of apartment No.800 on 8th floor in “Beverly Hills Tower in Lodha Bellezza Complex, to pay a sum of `32,98,816/- towards compensation, Rs.5,46,210/- towards rents, Rs.41,34,940/- towards the amount debited to the housing loan account, Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint are that the complainant on being assured by the second opposite party that he would arrange for sanction of loan to purchase apartment in Lodha Bellezza Project, booked apartment bearing number 800 on 8th floor in Beverlly Hills Towers in Lodha Bellezza Project for consideration of Rs.2,30,73,876/- and he paid booking advance of Rs.4,50,000/- on 8.08.2009. The opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that he had to pay two more installments of Rs.46,61,576/- else the amount paid by him would be forfeited and that agreement of sale would be executed after the complainant paid 20% of the sale consideration as per the standard practice.
3. Believing the version of the opposite parties, the complainant paid two installments and a total of Rs.51,11,576/- as on 30.09.2009 which is more than 22.15% of the total sale consideration. The opposite party no.1 furnished agreement for sale dated 21.10.2009 for signing it by the complainant and it contains several one sided clauses. The opposite parties resorted abusive and unfair and one sided clauses in agreement for sale which should be declared null and void.
4. The opposite party no.1 used to send letters, emails demanding installment payments and informed the complainant that the project was progressing well. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,19,92,107/- to the on various dates to the opposite party no.1 for the sale consideration of the flat. A tripartite agreement dated 30.1.2010 was entered between the complainant, the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 and a housing loan agreement dated 1.2.2010 was entered into between the complainant and the opposite party no.2. The complainant is a non-resident Indian having business in India and USA and he paid 95% of sale consideration of the flat and the opposite party ho.1 informed him that there is delay in construction of the complex which will be ready by April 2010 and the delay was due to Telangana agitation and floods in Thailand. The interest on the loan amount has been clicking non-stop. The complainant addressed letters to the opposite party no.2 from 1.2.2010 to 23.2.2013 should be treated as payment towards principal and not towards interest. There was no response from the opposite party and there appears no solution to the problem of the complainant. The complainant sought for furnishing copy of draft sale deed which the opposite party refused to do.
5. The complainant submitted that the reasons for escalation of price, Telangana agitation and floods in Thailand are cited by the opposite party to escape its liability of contractual obligation. The opposite party refused to hand over agreement of sale to the complainant and the complainant suffered monetary loss. The opposite party pressurized the complainant without handing over possession of the flat to pay common maintenance charges and the opposite party had not obtained no objection certificate from the A.P.State Fire Department and Occupancy Certificate from GHMC. The complainant claimed possession of the flat with compensation, rent, interest, damages etc.
6. The Bench has expressed doubt as to maintainability of the complaint on the premise of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
7. Sec.17(1)(a) of the C.P.Act prescribes jurisdictional limit on pecuniary aspect to State Commission. The provision of law reads as under:
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and
8. As provided by Sec.17 of the Act, State commission can entertain any complaint the subject matter of which including value of goods or services and compensation claimed does exceed Rs.20 lakh and it does not Rs.one crore. The sale consideration of flat possession of which is claimed along with other reliefs such as interest, compensation and damages does exceed more than Rs.2 crores which is much beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans Vs 1. Goyal Eye Institute and others in C.C.No.135 of 2011 decided on 30th March 2012, the Honble National Commission held that:
Section 11(a), 17 (1) (a) and 21 (a) of the Act prescribe the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum, State Commission and National Commission. Section 11 (1) of the Act provides that subject to the other provisions of the Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20 lakh. Similarly section 17(1)(a) provides that where value of goods and claim exceeds Rs.20 Lakh but does not exceed Rupees One Crore can be filed before the State Commission. By virtue of Section 21(a), the National Commission is vested with the original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, exceeds Rupees One Crore. In our view, a Consumer Fora whether it is District Forum, State Commission or National Commission must consider the question whether the complaints so filed before it is within its pecuniary jurisdiction besides satisfying itself about the maintainability of the complaint on other parameters.
---- --------
9. It is further held that
10. It is true that complainant has the right to value his claim in the complaint but it is equally true that by doing so, complainant should not value the claim which is grossly over-valued. The question is not res integra and has been considered by the Apex Court in a number of cases viz. Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj (1987) 4 SCC 69, Nandita Bose Vs.Ratanlal Nahata (1987) 3 SCC 705. In thelater case, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:
“The principles which regulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts are well settled. Ordinarily, the valuation of a suit depends upon the reliefs claimed therein and the plaintiffs valuation in his plaint determines the court in which it can be presented. It is also true that the plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court by either grossly over-valuing or gross under-valuing a suit. The court always has the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law…. But the question whether she was entitled to claim mense profits or damages in respect of the period subsequent to February 1, 1995 could not have been disposed of at a preliminary stage even before the trial had commenced. That question had to be decided at the conclusion of the trial alongwith other issues arising in the suit. Having regard to some of the decisions on which reliance is placed by the appellant in the course of the appeal, we are of the view that matter is not free from doubt”.
10. In the light of provision of law prescribing pecuniary limit on the jurisdiction of this Commission, and in the light of principle laid in the aforementioned decision this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain he complaint.
11. In the result, the complaint is returned to the complainant giving him liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other competent Forum. In the event the complainant approaches the Civil Court or any other Forum, the period spent between the filing of the claim before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter today by us will be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in “Trai Foods Ltd vs National Insurance Company Ltd and others” reported in III (2012) CPJ 17”.