The complainants booked a residential apartment with the opposite party, namely, Supertech Ltd. and the said apartment was allotted to them

vide letter dated 17.6.2013 for a total consideration of Rs.6204326/-. As per clause 19 of the allotment letter, the possession of the apartment  was to be delivered by April, 2014. A grace period of six months was also available to the builder. The grievance of the complainants is that the possession has not been offered to them, despite the committed date for this purpose having already expired. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the flat allotted to them along with compensation etc.

2.      In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where the value of the service or services as the case may be and the compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1 crore. The value of the service in such cases means the price agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder, 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. dated 7.10.2016 which in this case was Rs.6204326/-. In such cases, this Commission has not awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 12% p.a. where possession is also sought by the allottee. If the compensation in the form of interest @ 12% p.a. is computed from October 2014 till the date of filing of the complaint and is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate figure falls short of the threshold limit for invoking the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission does not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3.      The complainants have deliberately inflated their claim in order to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission despite the claims being ex-facie not maintainable. If complaints are considered on the basis of such inflated and highly exaggerated claims, the entire scheme of division of work envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, which confers pecuniary jurisdiction upon the State Commission where the aggregate of the value of the service and compensation exceeds Rs.20 lakhs but does not exceed Rs.1 crore and upon the District Forum where such aggregate does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs will be set at naught. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the complainants to file a fresh complaint before the concerned State Commission.