23/02/16

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT          

            This order relates to hearing on admission of the complaint case.

            It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant that if the total valuation as stated in the complaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, in that case the complaint should be returned to the Complainant.  In support of such contention the Learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case no.CC 427 of 2014 [Shri Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. & Ors.] decided on 08/06/15 and also referred to the provision contained in Or 7 r 10 of the Civil Procedure Code as to the return of the plaint. 

            We have heard the submission made by the Learned Counsel and perused the papers on record.  In paragraph 2 of the complaint it has been stated that the total consideration of the residential flat was fixed on Rs.49,74,125/-.  In prayer portion of the complaint as per prayer in ‘c’ the Complainant has prayed for interest which has been calculated @ 18% p.a. from 01/04/10 to 31/12/15 amounting to Rs.43 lakh.  In prayer ‘e’ Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakh on account of fluctuation in foreign currency from time to time being foreign exchange loss and in prayer ‘f’ Rs.5 lakh for mental agony and physical harassment.  The Complainant has also prayed for litigation cost of Rs.1 lakh and further interest on the principal sum due till disposal of the case.  In the decision reported in 2014 (2) CPR 772 (NC) [M/s Omaxe Ltd. vs. M/s Iqbal Begum & Anr.] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that pecuniary jurisdiction is to be decided in accordance with prayer made in the complaint.  The total amount of compensation claimed, therefore, comes to Rs.1,03,74,125/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. 

            As regards the provision contained in Or 7 r 10 CPC, we are of the considered view that the applicability of Or 7 r 10 has not been mentioned in the provision contained in section 13(4)(5)(6)(7) of the C. P. Act, 1986.  Moreover, section 12(3) provides that on receipt of complaint under sub-section (1), the District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected.  Evidently, therefore, in absence of specific provision as to the return of complaint, we are of the view that the complaint cannot be returned and in the instant case since the total valuation is above Rs.1 crore, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

            The petition of complaint is dismissed being not admitted.  The Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.