Complaints, in which value is less than Rs 20 lakh, are dealt with district forums while complaints between Rs 20 lakh to Rs 1 crore is dealt by the state commission and those over Rs 1 crore are handled by the national commission.
The state consumer disputes redressal commission (SCDRC), in an order rejecting the appeal of a developer and builder, said that a case cannot be challenged on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction once it has already been decided on at a forum where it was not raised.
Consumer cases, as per rules, are decided on the notional value of complaints. Complaints, in which value is less than Rs 20 lakh, are dealt with district forums while complaints between Rs 20 lakh to Rs 1 crore is dealt by the state commission and those over Rs 1 crore are handled by the national commission.
Girishkar Building, a co-operative housing society in the city, had filed a case with the district forum; it won the case and was granted compensation. However, the developer and builder went into an appeal and challenged the order at the state commission. The society had filed a grievance that it was not provided with building completion certificate and occupancy certificate. As a result, the municipal corporation did not supply water to society. They also failed to constitute or form a housing society despite correspondence with the builders. Under these circumstances, the society alleged deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practices on part of the builder or developers.
However, the developer and builder challenged the orders. They submitted that the consumer complaint was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned district forum and therefore, the same ought to have been dismissed. To challenge the complaint, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd order was cited which talks about the notional value of the units to decide the jurisdiction at the respective forum.
Advocate Uday Wavikar, who represented the society, argued that there was a deficiency in the service and that each flat owner had not filed a case. Justice A P Bhangale and A K Zade, members of SCDRC who gave the judgment said that under The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) (MOFA) Act, 1963, it is the statutory duty of the developer and builder to provide the above services. It added that the complaint was filed by society through its secretary and that complaint was not about numerous flat purchasers seeking relief. Hence, notional value issue did not arise. It added that since pecuniary consideration was not raised at the forum level, it cannot be raised at the commission level to decide the matter.
THE RULING
- Members of SCDRC said under the MOFA Act, 1963, it is the statutory duty of the developer to provide the above services
- They said since pecuniary law was not raised at the forum level, it cannot be raised now
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Law")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}