2015(4) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 46
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI
R. C. CHAVAN AND MR. DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR, JJ.
Mr. Mohammed Umar F. Khan Vs. Shree Ostwal Builders Ltd. & Ors.
First Appeal No.301 of 2014
23rd December, 2014.
Petitioner Counsel: M. ILTEJA SIDDIQUI
Respondent Counsel: ASHUTOSH MADHUKAR MARATHE
Consumer Protection Act (1986), S.11 - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Complainant claimed compensation in respect of Area 201 sq. ft. worth Rs.11,22,668/- - Other prayers are for refund of money, car parking, court expenses and compensation for mental agony - Considering all prayers District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 4)
JUDGMENT
Mr. R. C. CHAVAN, Hon'ble President :- We have heard at more than adequate length learned counsel Adv. M. Ilteja Siddiqui on behalf of the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) and learned counsel Adv. Ashutosh Madhukar Marathe on behalf of the Respondents/original Opponents (hereinafter referred to as 'the Opponents' for the sake of brevity). With the help of both the learned counsel, we have also carefully perused the material placed on record.
2. This appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant is directed against an order dated 15/04/2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.169 of 2014, holding that the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
3. We have taken up this appeal for disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4. Counsel for the Respondents/Opponents have a very strong objection to admit this appeal and he submits that order passed by the District Forum is proper considering the price of the tenement. However, we find that what the Complainant has claimed is not in respect of tenement in entirety but, he has claimed compensation in respect of an area admeasuring 201 sq. ft., which according to him is less than the area promised. Today, the Complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that at the time of filing of the complaint before the District Forum, said area was worth Rs.11,22,668/- as per prevailing market rates. Said affidavit is taken on record. Other prayer of the Complainant is regarding directing the Opponents to allow him to park his car in the stilt area till the society is formed and registered. Third prayer of the Complainant is to direct the Opponents to refund him an amount of Rs.80,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., as from 30/08/2013. Complainant also claimed from the Opponents an amount of Rs.55,400/- towards fees paid to the lawyer, court-fees, typing and Xerox charges. Complainant has also prayed for awarding him an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation towards mental torture and agony. Thus, upon taking into consideration all these prayers of the Complainant, as sought in the prayer clause of the complaint, we find that the District Forum was not justified in holding that the complaint was beyond its jurisdiction. We hold accordingly and pass following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 15th April, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.169 of 2014 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands remanded to the file of the District Forum for fresh trial.
District Forum shall decide the complaint on merits upon giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity, as per law, to the parties to file their respective versions and lead evidence on affidavits.
It is hereby made clear that without issuance of any fresh notice from the District Forum, the Complainant shall appear before the District Forum on 30th January, 2015.