PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, he State Commission in Complaint No. C-55/2012 Ms. Iqbal Begum Vs. M/s. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr. by which, while allowing complaint, OP No. 1 was directed to pay Rs.69,31,411/- with 9% p.a. interest from 5.5.2008 till date of actual payment and further awarded Rs.25,000/- as cost and dismissed complaint against OP No. 2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 was allotted commercial space by OP No. 1/appellant for a sum of Rs.72,96,222.23 for carrying out business of ootwear and Sports. OP No. 1 agreed to pay Rs.70,000/- per month as rent till the time some leading brand take allotted space on rent. It was further alleged that OP No. 1 will arrange brands like ikeand rrow Due to non-satisfactory construction made by OP No. 1, no brand name turned up to take commercial space on rent. Mall still is incomplete; so, the complainant gave legal notice dated 3.1.2012, but OPs have failed to fulfill their assurances. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP No. 1/Appellant resisted complaint, admitted allotment of space and receipt of 95% payment of the basic sale price, but submitted that remaining 5% of the basic sale price and other additional charges have so far not been paid by the complainant. It was further submitted that commercial complex was to be completed within 30 months from the date of agreement, i.e., 5.5.2008, but project has been completed by February, 2010, well before time. OP denied for arrangement of tenant. It was further submitted that as per agreement, OP paid a sum of Rs.17,81,506/- to the complainant and deposited TDS of Rs.1,92,604/-. It was further alleged that no deficiency can be imputed on the part of OP and OP is ready and willing to handover physical possession of the unit subject to receipt of balance sale consideration. It was further alleged that complaint was time barred and complainant was not a consumer, as property in question was commercial in nature and learned State Commission had no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 did not file written statement. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP No. 1 and directed him to pay Rs.69,31,411/- with 9% p.a. interest from 5.5.2008 till the date of actual payment and further awarded Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Leaned Counsel for the appellant assailed impugned order on 3 counts firstly, State Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction; secondly, complainant was not consumer; and thirdly, there was no deficiency on the part of appellant and submitted that order passed by State Commission be set aside and appeal be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that he has unnecessarily been dragged in the litigation. 5. Firstly, it is to be seen whether; learned State Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Prayer in the complaint runs as under: hat in the interest of justice the opposite party No. 1 and 2 should be directed to pay the complainant as under:- a. Rs.77,23,843.67 being price of the commercial space with interest @ 15% p.a. b. Rs.15,000/- per day from 05.05.08 to the date of payment as compensation for the harassment, inconvenienced, frustration and mental agony suffered by the complainant. c. Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs of legal notice and other expenses As complainant claimed Rs.15,000/- per day from 5.5.2008 and complaint was filed in January, 2012, the amount of compensation comes to about Rs.3,97,00,000/- meaning thereby, complainant claimed Rs.77,23,843/- price of the commercial space and Rs.3,97,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the legal notice and further claimed 15% interest on Rs.77,23,843/-. If this amount is clubbed, total amount claimed by the complainant will be near about Rs.4,74,00,000. Section 17 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act runs as under: urisdiction of the State Commission. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction (a) to entertain (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; meaning thereby, if complainant claim exceeds rupees one crore, State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complaint was maintainable only before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that learned State Commission has not granted relief of Rs.15,000/- per day compensation; so, complaint was within pecuniary jurisdiction of learned State Commission. He further submitted that he can withdraw this relief even at the appellate stage to bring the appellant within pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. 6. As far withdrawal of relief of Rs.15,000/- per day compensation from the complaint, respondent has not filed any application to this effect and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that Respondent No. 1 has withdrawn this prayer from the complaint. As far non-grant of relief of Rs.15,000/- per day by the learned State Commission, total compensation claimed does not stand reduced. Pecuniary jurisdiction is to be decided in accordance with the prayer made in the complaint and as complainant has claimed more than Rs. 4,74,00,000/-, complaint was not within pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission and order passed by learned State Commission is nullity in the eye of law as held by this Commission in I (2013) CPJ 387 (NC) Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Priti Kapur & Ors. and impugned order is liable to set aside. 7. We refrain ourselves from giving any opinion whether; complainant fall within the purview of consumer or whether any deficiency on the part of appellant as it may influence to the appropriate Forum while deciding subsequent complaint. 8. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. C-55/2012 Ms. Iqbal Begum Vs. M/s. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr. is set aside. Complainant is given liberty to file new complaint on the same cause of action before appropriate Forum.