This appeal has been filed by the appellant Shri Nand Kishore against the order dated 19.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Complaint No.42 of 2015, wherein the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2008, the respondent invited applications for allotment of shop in Mall, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.  The appellant/complainant applied for one shop and paid Rs.30,81,620/- against the total price of Rs.1,23,26,563/-. On 07.11.2008, draw of lot was held and the appellant was successful and the balance amount was payable in six instalments with 15% p.a. interest.  On 22.06.2009, the appellant was allotted shop No.87 measuring 1683 sq.ft.  On 15.11.2009, the appellant paid Rs.15,40,824/- as per schedule.   By 2010, the appellant in all paid Rs.61,23,268/-.  Till 2012, the respondent failed to start construction.  On 7.8.2012, the appellant filed a civil writ petition in the High Court wherein the respondent stated that the work has been allotted to SG Construction on 29.03.2012.  On 11.02.2015, the respondent failed to complete construction in seven years and as such the appellant issued legal notice.  On 16.04.2015, the complaint was filed before the State Commission, Pachkula, Haryana for refund of amount of Rs.61,23,268/- with 18% interest.  On 29.04.2015, the complaint was dismissed in limine on the ground that the shop in question is being purchased for commercial purpose. On 07.07.2015, an appeal was filed before the National Commission against the order date 29.4.2015 of State Commission.  On 30.07.2015, this Commission was pleased to set aside order dated 29.04.2015 of the State Commission, Panchkula, Haryana and remanded back the complaint to be decided in accordance with law.  In the year 2015-2016, the case proceeded on merits and both parties completed pleadings and lead evidence and case was listed for final arguments.  On 19.12.2016, the State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

3.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the matter was first dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer as the shop was being purchased for commercial purpose.  Then the question of pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised by the State Commission.  When the National Commission remanded the matter to the State Commission, the State Commission completed all the pleadings and evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.  At the time of final hearing, it was stated by the complainant that he is ready to reduce the interest rate from 18% p.a. to 9% p.a. and thus would bring the matter under the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.  Similar plea was made in the written statement submitted before the State Commission.  However, the State Commission has not agreed with this request and has calculated the total amount on the basis of 18% p.a. interest and decided that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction. 

4.      On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties stated that when the complainant has limited his claim of refund along with 9% p.a. interest, the State Commission should not have dismissed the complaint on this ground. 

5.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. Any consumer forum is required to examine first pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction and the point of limitation.  In the present case, first the State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant was not a consumer.  However, at that time the State commission agreed with the fact that the State Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint and that is why the complaint was dismissed on the ground of commercial purpose.  As per the provision of Order II Rule 2 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the plaintiff/ complainant is entitled to reduce the claim in order to satisfy the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.  In the present case, the complainant is ready to limit his claim by asking 9% p.a. interest instead of 18% p.a. interest on the amounts deposited till the date of filing of the complaint.  The opposite parties are also agreeable to the proposal that the matter be decided by the State Commission as the matter after the said prayer of the complainant comes within the jurisdiction of the State Commission.

6.      As all the pleadings have been completed and the complainant is ready to reduce the rate of interest to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 19.12.2016 and remand the matter to the State Commission for deciding the complaint on merits treating the complaint for refund of the amount with 9% p.a. interest.  First Appeal No.1142 of 2017 is accordingly allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.07.2018.