Advocate for complainant files memo to withdraw the complaint and furnishing the complainant to present the complaint before appropriate commission.Perused the records.Complaint came to be filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 on 21.12.2018 showing agreed consideration of apartment is Rs.51,33,874/- and the complainant paid Rs.10,92,364/-.The complainant seeks order to direct the OP to refund sum of Rs.10,92,364/-.

As per the complainant the agreed total consideration is Rs.51,33,874/- and he seeks refund of earnest money of Rs.10,92,364/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

On the date of filing the complaint under Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986 was applicable.According to section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986, the then District Consumer Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.20,00,000/- and the value of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be calculated on the basis of value of service or goods and compensation if any claimed.If section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986 is applicable on the date of filing of the complaint, this District Consumer Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction.The Hon’ble National Commission referring the decision of larger bench of five members in CC/17013/2018 dated 26.10.2021 Renu Singh Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., and connected matters categorically held in decision reported in 2022 (1) CPR 572 Amit Arora and another Vs. Vatika Ltd., that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, when the service availed and plus compensation shall be taken for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.Under such circumstances, as narrated above on the date of filing of the complaint the District Consumer Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction.Therefore, memo is accepted.Return the complaint with documents to the complainant to present the complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission.More ever in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neena Aneja case reported in 2021(2) 398 CPR, the complaint cannot be continued under new C.P.Act, 2019 before this Commission.Complaint is closed.