The above noted revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner / complainant against the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Goa, Panaji ( in short, the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 21/2017. 2. Facts of the case , as per the petitioner are that is that she had entered into the Agreement of Sale dated 19.04.2010 duly registered before the Sub Registrar of Mormugao, Vasco and has booked a double bed-room flat on the 2nd floor bearing F-No. 204 for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. According to her this price was inclusive of fittings, fixtures, etc. in the flat and common amenities like swimming pool, children's park and proportionate area in the property beneath. 3. As per the complainant she had booked the flat as it was a luxurious one and the Opposite Party had agreed to provide swimming pool, stilt car parking, children's park and lift with backup power. The Complainant had paid the full amount of consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- in different stages by cheques and cash by obtaining loan from State Bank of India, Vasco. 4. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party started demanding cash from her. The Complainant in order to obtain the possession of the flat paid an additional amount of Rs. 1,10,,000/- towards the maintenance charges to the Opposite Party. According to her she was also forced to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.12,000/- with the Opposite Party which the Complainant had paid under protest. As per the Complainant the Opposite Party also authorized the owners of the Complex 'Murgao Beach Tower' to use the private access meant in their complex i.e. Sunset Lagoon, which was only meant for the owners of the premises in Sunset Lagoon. 5. The Complainant further alleged that after handing over the possession of the flat to her alongwith car parking slot, the Opposite Party did not construct the swimming pool or the children's park as agreed. According to her till date the roof tiles on slanting roof slab have also not been fixed as shown in the brochure so also there is no arrangement made by the Opposite Party to drain out the rain water stagnates on the ground floor. 6. Based on the said cause of action, which allegedly arose on 26.6.2013 when the Opposite Party finally refused to provide the swimming pool and other amenities as agreed, the present complaint was filed with the prayers, amongst other prayers, for an order directing the Opposite Party to construct the swimming pool, children's park, direction to execute the deed of sale, compensation of Rs.50,000/- with towards mental agony and stress and for fitting of pipes to drain out the rain water. 7. The Opposite Party in its written version has opposed the case of the Complainant on the ground that that the complaint is not maintainable as the Ld. District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain it since the subject matter of dispute exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum as prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That the Opposite Party had supplied to the Complainant all necessary documents and the Complainant had voluntarily entered into the Agreement after fully understanding all relevant facts and circumstances. 8. The Opposite Party alleged that the brochure relied upon by the Complainant did not form the part of the contract and also that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all land owners of the property were not added as parties to the complaint. The Opposite Party alleged that they had informed the Complainant that it was not possible to construct the swimming pool as the customers in the said Project were not interested to make additional payment towards the swimming pool and, therefore, they had to discard the idea of construction of the swimming pool. 9. The Opposite Party further submitted that the building was duly completed in the month of September, 2011 and the possession was taken by the Complainant of the flat on 7.10.2011. The Opposite Party stated that they are not guilty of any deficiency and that the delayed execution of Sale Deed was not their fault. According to the Opposite Party it was the Complainant who has failed to get the Deed of Sale executed inspite of their letter dated 30.6.2012, 04.09.2012 and 28.11.2012 calling for the execution of the Deed of Sale. Ultimately opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 10. The District Forum vide order dated 21.02.2017 partly allowed the complaint. 11. The State Commission vide order dated 12.05.2017 while dismissing the complaint filed before the District Forum on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction observed as under: “8. To begin with, we are duty bound to observe that the Ld. District forum has completely ignored and failed to apply its quasi – judicial mind on the important aspect of the point of jurisdiction raised by the Opposite Party in his written version as well as Affidavit-in-Evidence. The point of jurisdiction ought to have been decided in the first instance in as much as all relevant facts and circumstances alleged in the original complaint clearly indicate that the value of the services and the compensation claimed by the Complainant in the original complaint exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only). 9. In this regard, it is noticed that as per the Complainant's own case, she has purchased the said flat for the consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- in different stages by cheques and cash by obtaining loan from State Bank of India, Vasco. The Complainant also has paid additional amount under different heads towards the purchase of the suit flat. The Complainant has also claimed the relief for the direction to the Opposite Party to execute the Deed of Sale as well as the specified amount of compensation alongwith other reliefs in the complaint. Now, to our minds all the aforesaid amounts taken together certainly exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- and thus the District Consumer Forum is clearly barred from trying and entertaining the present consumer dispute raised by the Complainant u/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 10. We are in total agreement with the submission made by the Appellants that the Ld. District Forum had no jurisdiction whatsoever to try and entertain the present complaint and therefore ought to have dismissed the complaint on this ground alone. We are unable to agree with the argument advanced by the Respondent that the Ld. Forum has enough jurisdiction to decide the dispute since there is no dispute about the entire consideration having been received by the Complainant. He has unsuccessfully argued that the issue in the complaint is the direction to prepare a Sale Deed which will only attract a stamp duty of Rs. 50,000/- and the registration charges, all within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. In this respect, we record our finding to the effect that the jurisdiction of the District Forum is decided on the basis of the value of the services in the whole, the total price of the suit flat as consideration partly paid or promised or paid in full as well as the amount of compensation claimed in the complaint. The issue as to the payment of stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the Sale Deed falls within the purview of the Office of the Sub Registrar and even for that matter the said authority has to take into consideration the valuation of the suit flat in terms of the price paid. Hence, we have no doubt in our minds that the Ld. District Forum while passing the impugned Order has acted in excess of the jurisdiction not vested in it. What surprises us is the fact that the Ld. District Forum did not decide the point of jurisdiction at all while passing the impugned Order. Hence on this ground alone, the impugned Order dated 21.02.2017 deserves to be set aside under this order and we accordingly do so.” 12. Hence the revision petition. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked as to how the complaint was maintainable in view of the order of the Larger Bench in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC/97/2016. He did not argue the matter but stated that Bench may pass an order in view of the above noted judgment. 14. It is seen from the agreement that sale price of the flat was Rs.25,00,000/- and as per the complaint, complainant had prayed for following: “a. For an order directing the opponent to construct the swimming pool on the roof level of 6th floor and to fix the mangalore tiles on the slanting roof of remaining portion of slab. b. To construct the children’s park, at the site provided in the brochure; c. For an order directing the opponent to reimburse Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 16.03.2011 till realization; d. For an order directing the opponent to reimburse the excess amount ofRs.4,25,000/- collected by him with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from 19.04.2010 till realization; e. For an order directing the opponent to refund Rs.52,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. to the complainant being the access amount, which he is illegally withholding; f. For an order directing the opponent to pay Rs.2000/- per month towards mental torture and agony from 19.04.2010 onwards; g. For an order directing the opponent to execute the sale deed, the cost of which will be borne by the complainant; h. To pay the damages / compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and stress and for not providing the amenities; i. For an order directing the opponent to provide requisite size pipes to drain out the rain water and connect the same to the government sewerage line; j. For costs.” 15. The Larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has observed as under “It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.” 16. In view of the above, admittedly, District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
