1.      This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite party. Averments made in the complaint are that the complainant No.1, Mr. Sukhvir Singh Rathi, booked two flats with the opposite party through application Nos.2119 and 2118 on 01.03.2013.  Complainant No.2, Mrs. Roshani Devi, also booked a flat through application No.2147 on 19.02.2013.  It has been alleged that the opposite party has failed to allot the flats against application No.2118 and 2147.  The allotment of flat No.T6-C5 was made against application No.2119 to the complainant No.1 vide letter dated 22.01.2014 of the O.P. Even this allotment has been subsequently cancelled unilaterally by the opposite party vide letter No.PSREPL/201416 dated 05.08.2014 .   The details of the applications and total consideration as well as amount paid by the complainants are reflected in the following table:-

2.      In these circumstances, the complainants have made the following prayer:-

        “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to order refund of Rs.39,00,000/- principal amount deposited on various dates +Rs.33,26,000/- interest @ 24% p.a. from March, 2013 to February 20, 2017 + compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for mental agony + litigation cost Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.1,24,26,000/- (Rs. One crore twenty four lakhs and twenty six thousand only) caused due to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, dereliction of duty, failure and neglect to rectify the same, unnecessary suffering losses/incurring expenses without any cause due to opposite party.”

3.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainants at the admission stage.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainants stated that the opposite party did not allot two flats, one to complainant No.1 against the application No.2118 and another to complainant No.2 against application No.2147.  Only one flat was allotted to the complainant No.1 against application No.2119, which was subsequently cancelled.  In these circumstances, the complainants have right to get their money back as well as for compensation. The total amount paid is Rs.39,00,000/- and refund has been requested for the same.  The complainants have also demanded compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.  Interest of Rs.33,26,000/- at the rate of 24% p.a. from March 2013 to February 20, 2017 has also been demanded along with litigation cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The learned counsel stated that the total amount demanded is Rs.1,24,26,000/- and therefore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint.

5.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have perused the record.  Complainant No.1 has booked two flats on same date.  The complainant No.2 also booked a separate flat on another date.  Two complainants have joined in filing the present complaint.  Even the subject matter of the complaint is not common.  The complaint is in respect of three different flats by two different persons.  These complainants would have combined their complaint only under Section 12 (1)(c), but there is no application for permission  under Section 12 (1) (c).  Hence on this count alone the complaint is not maintainable.

6.      The complainants in their prayer have requested for direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.39,00,000/-, which has been paid by them against three bookings.  An interest amount of Rs.33,26,000/- has also been claimed in the complaint at the rate of 24% p.a. from March, 2013 to February 2017.  Apart from that, compensation Rs.50,00,000/- has been demanded.  It seems that the complainants have combined amount paid for all the three bookings/flats with high interest and arbitrary compensation to come up to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  For a payment of Rs.39,00,000/-, a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- apart from the interest seems totally unreasonable and has been claimed only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Interest is also a form of compensation. Therefore, if either the interest or the compensation demanded is added to the amount of refund requested, it does not cross the figure of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.  Accordingly, this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

7.      Based on the above grounds, the complaint is not maintainable in this Commission.  However, liberty is granted to the complainants to file the complaint before the appropriate form, if they so wish.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in limine.