B.C. Gupta ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
These three appeals have been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.01.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaints No. CC/15/586, CC/15/748 & CC/15/749, filed by Srishti Cooperative Housing Society Limited against the appellant builders, Azure Tree Townships LLP. The complaints were filed alleging deficiency in service rendered by the OP builders to the complainant society and its members, as a result of statutory and contractual breach on the part of the OP Builders. Directions have been sought through the consumer complaints to the builders to remove defects in construction and to carry out repairs etc. Directions have also been sought for making payment of certain amounts alongwith interest towards compensation for delay of 15 months in handing over the possession. The particulars of the claim attached with the consumer complaint in one case shows that the total amount claimed is 98,68,432/-.
1. During the pendency of the complaints before the State Commission, two interim applications were filed by the OP Builders before that Commission, challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaints. In one of the applications, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission to take cognisance of the complaints was questioned. The appellants/OPs took the plea that it was necessary to consider value of the flat also for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. In case, the value of the flat was taken into account, the case was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. It was stated however, by the complainants that although the possession of the respective flats had already been handed over, the relief was being asked only on account of deficiency in service on certain issues. The value of such relief demanded was less than 1 crore.
2. In another application challenging the maintainability of the complaints, the OPs sought directions to the other party to seek permission of the State Commission under section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing a joint complaint.
3. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 27.01.2016 held that the matter was within their pecuniary jurisdiction. The State Commission also held that the complaints had been filed by the Society for its members and hence, there was no question of attracting section 12(1)(c) of the Act. The State Commission vide impugned order decided to admit the complaints after rejecting both the applications, challenging their maintainability.
4. During hearing before me, a reference was made to a larger three-Member Bench, already constituted to go into similar issues. The following issue was, inter alia, referred to the larger bench:-
"(i) In a situation, where the possession of a housing unit has already been delivered to the complainants and may be, sale deeds etc. also executed, but some deficiencies are pointed out in the construction/development of the property, whether the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole, OR the extent of deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction."
5. The larger bench decided the issue vide their order dated 07.10.2016 in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferous Infrastructure Ltd." [CC No. 97/2016] and observed as follows:-
"It is the value of goods or service as the case may be and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction."
6. It is evident from the order passed by the three-Member Be........