The Complainant is present in person. Today the Complainant has filed track reports from where it is evident that OP has received the notice. Today Ms. Ambika Law has entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama and prays time for filing written version.
Today the complainant has filed an application mentioned therein that the entire consideration of the property which he was agreed to purchase from the OP has exceeded Rs. 20,00,000/-.
It is true that on earlier occasion, Consumers were in a position to file a Complaint seeking refund amount as paid by the Consumers to the OP and the refund amount was the amount for determination of the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum/Commission. In the instant Complaint admittedly the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- for purchasing a flat from the OP towards the advanced money. As the OP did not bother to start the construction of the said flat till filing of this Complaint being dissatisfied with such inaction with the OP, the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this Complaint praying for direction upon the OP to refund the paid amount to him along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of making payment till entire realization. In the Prayer portion the Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation cost. When the Complainant filed this Complaint then at the relevant time it was permitted to seek refund of the paid amount and the refund money determine the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum or Commission. But Subsequently, the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to pass an order in the Case of Mukesh Makkar vs. M/s IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd and Ors, reported in 2019 (4) CPR, 361 (NC) in the Consumer Case No. 752/2018 decided on 30.07.2019. The Complaint was also filed before the Hon’ble NCDRC seeking refund of the paid amount by the Complainant. In the Paragraph No. 16 of the said Judgment it is mentioned by the Hon’ble NCDRC as follows:-
“16. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Ops submitted that since the amount of refund being sought is less than Rs. 1 Crore, this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. The aforesaid contention was examined and rejected by this Commission vide order dated 27.08.2018 in Pradeep Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs. M/s Supertech Limited, CC/508/2017, which to the extent, it is relevant reads as under:
4. The first plea advanced by the Learned Counsel for the opposite party is that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. In support of her contention she relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Commission in CC/1195/2017 Narendra Shah & Anr. Vs. Supertech Ltd. decided on 24.05.2017. The aforesaid decision, in my view, is contrary to the decision of 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 and therefore, does not constitute a binding legal precedent. In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary 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 consumer complaint exceeds Rupees one crore. It was held by the Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) that the value of the service in such cases would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. The amount actually paid by the flat buyer to the builder would have absolutely no relevance in such a case, the only relevant factors being the value of the service i.e. the sale price agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder and the compensation claimed in the consumer complaint. For instance, if a flat buyer agrees to purchase a residential house for a consideration of more than Rupees one crore, but pays only Rs. 10.00 lacs to the builder and is aggrieved on account of the builder having failed to honour his contractual commitment, the appropriate Forum, if he wants to file a consumer complaint, would be this Commission, since the value of the service i.e. the price which he had agreed to pay to the builder for the flat was more than Rupees one crore. In the present case, admittedly, the sale price of the flat was agreed at more than Rs. 1,38,00,000/-. Therefore, it is only and only this Commission which would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint.”
Having regard to the abovementioned Judgment we are of the view that the said observation can be implemented in the case in hand because in the affidavit the Complainant has disclosed that the flat which he was inclined to purchase from the Op, the cost of the said is more than Rs. 20 Lacs. Therefore, in view of the abovementioned Judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC we are not in a position to adjudicate the present Complaint at this juncture as the total value of the suit property had exceeded the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.
Hence it is ordered,
That the Consumer Complaint being no. CC 89/2019 is hereby dismissed being barred by Pecuniary Jurisdiction there is no order as to cost.
However the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the Competent Court/Forum/Commission for redressal of his grievance, if not barred otherwise.
As the petition of Complaint is not admitted, the Complainant is at liberty to obtain the photocopies of the petition of Complaint and other related documents as annexed by him at the time of filing of this Complaint the Ld. Forum by making separate application. Upon receipt of the application, the Registrar-in-Charge take necessary steps so that the Complainant can get return of the photocopies of the petition of Complaint and other related documents without any further delay in accordance with Law.
Let plain copy of this final judgment be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
(Dictated & Corrected by)
Member
Hon’ble Silpi Majumder
