1. This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 14.1.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”), in Complaint Case No.CC/16/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the short ground that it does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it, as the value of the plot of land (₹85,00,000/-), booked by him with the Respondents, a Real Estate Developer and its Director, together with the amount of compensation (₹5,00,000/-); interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on ₹85,00,000/- and litigation cost of ₹50,000/-, (totalling ₹1,06,94,800/-), would be in excess of Rupees one crore, which is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the Appellant. 3. Section 17(1)(a) of the Act determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. It reads as follows : 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 (ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 4. On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the Compensation, if any, claimed in the Complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission. In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. 5. In that view of the matter, the value of the plot in question was ₹85,00,000/- and the amount of compensation claimed in the Complaint being ₹5,00,000/-, the State Commission had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. The State Commission erred in adding the interest as also the litigation cost, to the aforesaid two amounts in determining its pecuniary jurisdiction, as the said amounts had not been claimed as compensation for non-delivery of possession of the plot. 6. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits in accordance with law. 7. Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.11.2016 for further proceedings. 8. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. |
