The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant is present. Today is fixed for admission hearing of this complaint. At the very outset it is very necessary to maintain that this complaint was filed on 27.02.2020 and on 03.03.2020 it was fixed for admission hearing for the first time. But due to non availability of the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant or the Complainant himself admission hearing could not be made and subsequently it was fixed on 19.03.2020 for admission hearing. On 19.03.2020 in view of the resolution adopted by the District Bar Association of this District dated 16.03.2020 and the later dated 16.03.2020 of Consumer Court Bar Association having Office at Kreta Suraksha Bhavan whereby the lawyers of West Bengal Bar Counsel took decision to abstain from taking any steps due to Covid-19. For this reason this case was adjourned to 24.03.2020 for admission hearing. But on and from 24.03.2020 lockdown was declared by the Govt. of India due to Covid-19 and for this reason this file could not be placed for admission hearing prior to 25.06.2020.

On 25.06.2020 this file was placed before the Ld. Bench for admission hearing but neither the Complainant nor his Ld. Counsel was present and in the interest of natural Justice time was given to the Complainant for admission hearing fixing the date on 02.07.2020.

Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel is present. We have taken the complaint for admission hearing. During hearing at the point of its admissibility it is seen by us that the Complainant being interested to purchase a Banglow under Royal Enclave Project with the Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. at New Town, Action Area- III. The entire cost of the said flat was scheduled at Rs. 20,00,000/- including all amenities and facilities as mentioned in the allotment letter dated 04.03.2019. On being asked by the OP the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the OP and the OP had issued two money receipts dated 30.12.2018 and 03.01.2019 in favour of the Complainant. It is mentioned in the petition of complaint that for making payment of the second installment the Complainant had to take personal loan from State Bank of India. After issuance of the letter of allotment of the said Banglow under Royal Enclave Project the OP did not provide any documents about the ownership of the said property inspite of several requests from him. The OP did not bother to take any positive steps towards execution of Agreement of Sale. Being dissatisfied with the service of the OPs the Complainant thought for making an application to the OPs praying for refund of the deposited amount. In the meantime the OP told the Complainant to apply for refund of the deposited amount and OP assured the Complainant to refund the amount within a very short span. Since then the OP did not take any step to make refund of the paid amount to the Complainant till date. Subsequently the Complainant made prayer on several occasions praying for refund of the paid amount including written correspondences (email) to no effect. Having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint for redressal of his grievances directing the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with bank interest thereon in his favour and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- due to harassment and mental agony, litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- etc.

It is seen by us that the cost of the questioned Banglow was fixed at Rs. 20,00,000/- and in the prayer portion the Complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

It is submitted by the Complainant that as the Complainant has prayed for the paid amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. totally 6,00,000/-, the petition of complaint is very much maintainable before this Ld. Forum from the point of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the amount paid by him along with compensation will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.

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 Banglow which he was inclined to purchase from the Op, the cost of the said is more than Rs. 30 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 111/2019 is hereby dismissed being barred by Pecuniary Jurisdiction and without being admitted.            

                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 order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

      Dictated & Corrected by