JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The respondent / complainant booked a residential plot with the petitioner in a project namely ‘TDI City’ for an agreed sale consideration of Rs.16,62,500/-, though the actual payment made by him amounted to Rs.21,15,758/-. Since there was delay in offering possession of the plot booked by him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking the following reliefs: To opposite party to immediately offer the possession of plot bearing No. A-A11/22 measuring 350 sq. yard in TDI CITY in favour of the complainant and further intimate to the complainant about the balance sale consideration of plot (as booking rate was Rs.4750/- per sq. ft.), if any. To opposite party to pay the penalty/ compensation for inordinate delay in offer of possession of plot to be calculated as @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount from March, 2008 (period of three years has excluded for development and construction from the date of booking i.e. February, 2005) to till possession of plot. Award the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of OP and Rs.25,000/- being the cost of litigation including Advocate’s fee and misc. expenses.”
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which took a preliminary objection that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. 3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 4. In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum would have the jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint does not exceed Rs.20.00 lacs. In the present case, though the agreed sale consideration was Rs.16,62,500/-, the complainant admittedly paid Rupees more than Rs.21.00 lacs. That by itself takes the case out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such cases would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the buyer to the seller. Even if the agreed sale consideration is taken to be Rs.16,62,500/-, the compensation claimed by the complainant in prayer (b) and (c) of the consumer complaint, has to be added to the aforesaid amount. On such addition, the aggregate comes to much more than Rs.20.00 lacs. Therefore, the District Forum did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. 5. The impugned orders therefore cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The complaint filed before the District Forum stands dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of the complainant approaching the concerned State Commission by way of a fresh consumer complaint and if he decides to approach the concerned State Commission by way of a fresh consumer complaint, it shall also be open to him to seek condonation of delay in terms of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act on the basis of the previous litigation which travelled upto this Commission. The revision petition stands disposed of. |
