Order No.06

The Ld. Advocate of the petitioners/OPs is present. Ld. Advocate of the OPs/complainant is present.

The instant mis. Application is taken up for hearing.

Ld. Counsel appearing for petitioners/OPs highlighted section 34(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019 and try to impress upon this Commission that in case of services the premium etc. whatever has been paid that may be considered as valuation but so far goods here (immovable property) the actual consideration price should be taken into account in respect of valuation of the case. Further he highlighted one decision 2022(1) CPR 363 (NC) in support of his contention.

On reading and re reading of section 34(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019 we are of the view that section 34(1) does not speak so as highlighted by said Ld. Counsel rather the words are very clear “goods or services” so we cannot separate goods from services and as a whole it goes to indicates that valuation of the amount paid by the so called complainant to the developer be taken into our consideration as the valuation of the case. Moreover the facts of the case of the said decision and the facts of the case in our hand are distinguishable and to our view it has no manner of application relating to the case in our hand. It is specifically mentioned under the heading in that judgment (IMPORTANT) POINT

1. Purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction-purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Nowhere in that judgment there is any mention about taking the full consideration value of the immovable property in question.

Ld. Counsel of the OPs/complainants also submits that he has only prayed for relief relating to the amount he has paid to the OPs.

In the above premises we are constrained to hold that instant Misc. Application is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly we do that.

Thus, the instant Misc. Application is disposed of.

Dictated and Corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Shri Sankar Kumar Ghosh]
PRESIDENT