Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 347 (CAL)

SANAT KUMAR ROONGTA v. FLORIDA TOWERS PVT. LTD.

2013-06-18

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, S.COARI

body2013
JUDGMENT The Order of the Commission was delivered by : Mukherjee, President.––This order relates to the MA 182/2013 whereby the OPs challenged the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is the contention of the OPs that there are so many persons who have filed this complaint case and each of them has purchased flat. 2. The learned Counsel for the OP/MA applicant has submitted that if the total purchase value of the flats along with compensation as prayed for, is taken into consideration, it will exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In respect of his contention the learned Counsel has filed the list of flat owners, that is, the present complainants mentioning therein the deed value of each of the flats. The learned Counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No. 2679 of 2011 wherein it was held that the case was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service in respect of housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint. 3. The learned Counsel for the complainants has submitted that necessary order as may be deemed fit and proper may be passed. Learned Counsel has submitted list of decisions of some decisions which were opposed by the learned Counsel for the MA appellants/OPs. 4. From the petition of complaint it appears that there are 131 flat owners who have filed this complaint through their authorized persons. The complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 98 lakh and litigation cost of Rs. 1 lakh. Evidently, if the total valuation of the flats of the complainants and the amount of compensation as claimed are taken into consideration, it would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the complainants are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the petition of complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The MA 182/2013 is thus allowed. The petition of complaint stands dismissed for want of pecuniary. Complaint petition is dismissed.