JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

                 The complainant / respondent booked a commercial shop / showroom admeasuring 610.49 sq. ft. of super built up area with the respondent for a price of Rs.4,000/- per sq. ft.  Alleging delay in delivery of possession, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of Rs.6,25,000/- which he had paid to the respondent, along with compensation.  The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds, including that the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  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 also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

2.      In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods or the services, as the case may be, did not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- along with compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint.

As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the service in such cases would mean the sale price agreed to be paid by the buyer to the seller.  Since the area of the unit booked by the complainant was more than 600 sq. ft. and the agreed price was Rs.4,000/- per sq. ft., it is evident that the value of the services hired or availed by the  complainant was more than Rs.20,00,000/-.  The District Forum therefore did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, which ought to have been instituted before the concerned State Commission.  

3.      For the reasons stated hereinabove the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.  The complaint is consequently dismissed with liberty to the complainant to institute a fresh complaint, in accordance with law before the concerned State commission.  While filing fresh complaint, the complainant / respondent will also be entitled to seek the condonation of delay in filing the said complaint on the ground that she had bonafidely filed and was pursuing a consumer complaint before the concerned District Forum.  If and when such a request is made, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law after considering the objection, if any, of the petitioner company.

4.      The Revision Petition stands disposed of.  The amount which the petitioner had deposited in compliance of the order passed by the State Commission and / or the interim order of this Commission shall be released to the petitioner, along with interest, which may have accrued on that amount.