ORDER                      

Rekha Rani, President

1. The complainants have filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended   inter-alia seeking direction to Earth Infrastructure Ltd to refund an amount of  Rs. 4,88,000/- along with interest @ 24% from the date of deposit of the amount till realization , compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.55,000/- as litigation charges  from Earth Infrastructure Ltd.  (for short the OP) alleging that complainant booked a fully furnished office space measuring 300 Sq. Ft. by paying a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- to the OP. It is alleged that despite receipt of the booking amount OP failed to allot a unit. Hence complainant applied for refund but insteadof refunding the booking amount OP induced the complainants to further invest in an office space with bigger space measuring 350 Sq. Ft. and also promised to transfer the previous paid booking amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- in the new office booking.  On 09.09.2014 complainants  invested together in OP’s office space at Earth Tech One situated at Plot no. 1 , Sector Tech Zone, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh as well as in Studio Apartments situated at Plot no. TZ-06 Tech Zone, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh .  It was mutually decided between the parties that the complainants would invest in a separate office (ETOS-2230), and also a studio apartment (ETOS -2308) and further the amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- already invested would be transferred for the new investment to be made by the complainants. On 18.09.2014 complainants received a call from OP for increasing the size of the office space unit from 350 Sq. Ft. to 445 Sq. Ft. as the 350 Sq. Ft. office was not in the inventory  and as such complainants further paid a sum of Rs. 46,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- to the OP.However amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- deposited with the OP was not adjusted in the new investment. On 15.04.2015 complainants received a communication from OP that the studio apartment was cancelled due to non-payment of the remaining dues.  Upon receipt of the same they immediately visited OP’s office where they were advised to surrender the studio apartment documents on assurance that the investment made in respect of studio apartments (Rs. 2,21,000/-)  and of the previous office space (Rs 1,23,000/-) would be adjusted towards the new fully furnished office space within a month. On 07.10.2015 a cancellation letter in respect of the new office space was received by complainants on the ground of non-payment of remaining dues . Complainants left with no other option sent a legal notice dated 05.01.2016 but all in vain. Hence, the complaint.
2. On receipt of notice the OP has appeared and contested the complaint vide its reply.
3. We have heard complainant in person. None appeared for OP to argue.
4. Copy of the Payment Plan annexed with the complaint ( page 24)  indicates:

                                                PAYMENT PLAN

                 It is mentioned in Para 10 of the complaint that on 18.09.2014 complainants received a call from OP for increasing the size of the office space unit from 350 Sq. ft. to 445 Sq. ft. as 350 sq. ft. office was not in the inventory according to OP, hence further amount of Rs. 46,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- was paid by the complainants to the OP. The aforesaid subsequent payments were duly acknowledged by the  OP vide correspondence dated 11.09.2014. As such the complainants deposited a consolidated and total sum of Rs. 4,88,000/- + Rs. 1,23,000/- + Rs. 87,000.00 + Rs. 46,000.00+ Rs 11,000/- + Rs. 2,21,000.00/-. 

            As per the payment plan placed on record   by the complainant himself with the complaint it is clear that the minimum value of office space for an area measuring 350 Sq.Ft. is Rs. 23,62,500/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.

5. Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous   Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016  observed that value of goods & services  and value of the relief sought is to be   seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of deficiency alleged.
6. The same question again came up  before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum.  The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.
7. In another case titled  Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission  judgment in  Ambrish Kumar Shukla  (supra)  was again referred and following relevant part  of the said judgment was quoted:

“Reference order dated 11.8.2016   Issue No. (i)   It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 Crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakh, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”

8. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainant  had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and  final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized  the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition.  The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles.   Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High  Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India   taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant.  The complainant hence filed a  Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and  for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles.  The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The  Hon’ble National Commission observed that :

“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh,  the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-.  Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.

9. Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings as the court/tribunal/forum is bound to decide the same before proceeding to adjudicate the matter on merits as the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and decision of the court/tribunal/forum without jurisdiction is a nullity which cannot be executed.
10. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) v. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 22 (SC) = Civil Appeal No. 5476 OF 2013 dated 11/07/2013,Hon’ble Apex Court observed:

  “Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at of the any stage proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/  inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).

11. In Reliance Consumer Finance Vs Randhir Singh First Appeal No. 431 of 2013 the Hon’ble SCDRC , Chandigarh vide order dated 24.12.2013 it was observed that it is settled  principle of law, that the Consumer Fora, at any stage of the proceedings, is duty bound to decide of its own, the legal questions as to whether the complainant within the definition  of a Consumer ; whether it had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; whether the complaint involved the consumer dispute; and whether the consumer complaint was maintainable.  
12. Since in view of the above discussed judgments this forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate claim of the complainant ,the instant complaint be returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction . Copy of the  same  be retained  on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

           Announced this 14th Day of December 2017.