O R D E R

( Passed this on 30^th  November, 2017)

Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President

01.    This complaint is filed against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in their service.

02.    The complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P.No.-1, a private limited company, to purchase a flat in an Apartment scheme being constructed by the Opposite Parties. The agreed price of the flat is Rs.- 20,74,800/-. The complainant has paid Rs.-18,51,000/- to the Opposite Parties. It is alleged no proper sanction to building development plan is obtained by the Opposite Parties from Competent Authority and also failed to execute sale deed of the flat. However possession of incomplete flat was abruptly given to him. The flat is inhabitable and basic amenities are also not provided. No Occupancy Certificate is obtained by the Opposite Parties. Besides there are many deficiencies in construction and common amenities like lift, covered parking, sewerage, community hall, club house, etc are not  provided as per assurance given by the Opposite Parties. Hence, he filed this complaint for several relief’s.

03.    Heard the Learned counsel for the complainant at admission stage of the complaint. Some of the prayers made in the complaint are,

1. Direct the Opposite Parties to complete the construction of apartment as per schedule ´C´ of agreement dated 17/12/2012, covering Item No. 1 to 6 and points (a) to (k) mentioned in legal notice dated 16/2/2012 and 26/7/2012,
2. Direct the Opposite Parties to execute the sale deed of his Flat No. 404,
3. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards incomplete construction work inside the Apartment,
4. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards physical agony,
5. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony,
6. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- for legal notice charges,
7. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay suitable interest on aforesaid amount from 9/8/2012 till realisation of the amount,
8. Saddle cost of the complaint.

          From the above relief’s, it is clear that main prayer of the complainant is of execution of sale deed after obtaining necessary completion and occupancy certificates and removing the deficiencies. Besides he has claimed     Rs.-10,00,000/- for incomplete work, compensation and notice charges with interest on aforesaid amounts.

04.    Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.- Twenty lakhs.

05.    The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of Hon´ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd,  Consumer Case No. 97/2016 decided on 7/10/2016 (NC).  In that judgment it is held that in cases where even the part deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter, whether goods or service will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the complainant has prayed the relief’s of removal of deficiency along with sale deed and possession of the flat along with compensation, total value of the flat will have to be taken into consideration. The cost of the flat (Rs. 20,74,800/-) itself is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum. Therefore in  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  complaint  is  beyond  the

pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum and therefore cannot be filed in the forum. The complainant may approach competent authority to file the complaint.

          Hence, the following order.

ORDER

(1)    The complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.