1.       The office has submitted report that there is a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.  In the application it has been stated that the counsel for the appellant received the copy of the Order dated 25.03.2019 on 16.07.2019 but did not inform the appellant. The appellant tried to contact with the counsel but no response was received.  Appellant thereafter personally visited to State Commission in September, 2019 and came to know that his complaint was dismissed on 25.03.2019  in the absence of his counsel.  Thereafter the appellant applied for certified copy of the Order and prepared for filing a review petition before the State Commission but the counsel advised that instead of filing the review petition appeal may be filed.  Thereafter this appeal was filed on 27.11.2019.  Cause shown is sufficient.  Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 

2.       The above appeal has been filed against the Order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP at Lucknow dated 25.03.2019 by which the complaint has been dismissed on two grounds i.e. the complainant  is not a ‘consumer’ and from the valuation of the complaint as stated in the complaint the complaint is maintainable before the District Forum and the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. 

3.       We have considered the arguments of the counsel for both the parties. So far as the finding of the State Commission that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ is concerned once the State Commission has found that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction then its findings on this issue is rendered without jurisdiction and cannot be taken into account.

4.       So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned the Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides that where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs the complaint will lie before State Commission.  By virtue of Section 17(a) of the Act at this stage the Commission has to be guided by the compensation as claimed in the complaint and is not required to decide its propriety. In the complaint the compensation as claimed was Rs. 30 lakhs and together with the cost of the service the value has been given as Rs. 73,20,000/-.  It was within the pecuniary limits of the State Commission.  The complaint has been wrongly dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Order of State Commission dated 25.03.2019 passed in CC No. 131 of 2011 is set aside.  The matter is remitted to State Commission which after giving the parties an opportunity of leading the evidence shall decide the matter on merits including the issue relating to the maintainability of the complaint except the pecuniary jurisdiction.  The complainant shall appear before the State Commission along with the certified copy of this Order on 10.07.2023 and thereafter the State Commission shall fix a date according to the convenience of the parties.