In this batch of six Appeals by the Complainant, challenge is laid to the orders, all dated 8.7.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaints Nos. 118, 134, 136, 145, 148 & 149/2016. By identical orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaints on the ground that these do not fall within its pecuniary jurisdiction. While holding so, the State Commission has granted liberty to the Complainants to seek redressal of their grievance before a proper Forum or Civil Court as per law. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders are unsustainable. Admittedly, the total value of each of the subject flats, even by excluding the amount of compensation claimed in each of the Complaints, exceeds ₹20,00,000/-. The question with regard to determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora came up for consideration before a larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – (Consumer Complaint No.97/2016 and other connected cases). Vide order dated 07.10.2016, three member Bench has held as under : “Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds ₹1.00 crore. Therefore what has to be seen for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, is the value of the goods or services and the amount of compensation claimed in the complaint. If the aggregate of (i) the value of the goods or services and (ii) the compensation claimed in the complaint exceeds ₹1.00 crore, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Similarly, if the aggregate of the value of (i) the goods or services and (ii) compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds ₹20,00 lakh but does not exceed ₹1.00 crore, the State Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.” In view of the above, the value of each of the flats being more than ₹20,00,000/-, the State Commission had Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints. Accordingly, all the Appeals are allowed; the orders impugned in these Appeals are set aside and the afore-noted Complaints are restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits. Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 1.2.2017 for further proceedings. All the Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. |
