This case record is taken up for consideration in the matter of passing order in respect of the petition filed by the applicant side on the ground that CC-58/2024 is not maintainable in the eye of law.. This matter has been contested by the OP by filing written objection and relevant judicial pronouncements.

The arguments highlighted by the Ld. Advocates of both the sides have been heard in full. Considered submission. Perused the MA application.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant side that this case is not maintainable on the ground that this Commission is devoid of pecuniary jurisdiction so far as the corresponding CC case is concerned.

In an attempt to clarify the issue the applicant has pointed out that the total value of the property in question is 55,02,886/-  and the Complainant has prayed for Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.  Thus this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

On the other hand the OPs of this MA case in their written objection has argued that by filing the CC case, they prayed for refund of Rs.5,50,000/-which was paid by them to the applicant of this MA case, and for imposition of direction upon the applicant of this MA case to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, as the value of goods or services paid as consideration did not exceed the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, this District Commission does have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case so far as the extant statutory provision is concerned.

In this connection reliance has been made on the observation of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of M/S Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. in which it was observed that the  Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why  a specific provision has been made in  Section 34(1) , 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and The National Commission respectively.

Thus so far as the relevant provision of the 2019 Act is concerned, it is clarified in unequivocal terms that only the amount paid as consideration by the consumers shall be considered for determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

So, it is evident that as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the District Commission in the matter of trial of the instant case cannot be questioned. 

In view of such position, the MA-43/2024 stands dismissed on contest.

 It is held that the CC-58/2024 is maintainable in the eye of law.

In the light of observation made hereinabove this MA case is disposed of.

Let the case record of MA-43/2024 be tagged with the case record of CC-58/2024.