ORDER<br /> <br /> Order regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum passed at the time of admission.<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the prayers for directing the Ops jointly and severally 1)to complete construction and hand over possession of the flat, 2) Directing the Ops jointly and severally to register the flat in question which is in Block D in his favour, 3) Direct the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.8,05,000/- towards the loss of rent incurred. 4) Directing the Ops to pay agreed 21% p.a. on the amount paid as per clause 8 of the agreement for the delay in handing over the flat, 5) To direct the Ops to pay compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs and to grant such other reliefs. <br /> <br /> The complainant in para 6 of his complaint stated to have paid Rs.21,40,000/- as on the date of filing the complaint and further stated the cost of the land and construction would totally come to Rs.24,80.000/- The counsel for the complainant at the time of admission submitted that compensation claimed alone is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and that prayer for execution of document and delivery of possession shall not be counted. He further agreed that compensation claimed do not exceed Rs.20 Lakhs and therefore maintained that value of the subject matter i.e., compensation claimed in this case is less than 20 Lakhs and therefore the complaint is maintainable. The counsel in support of his arguments relied upon as many as 11 decisions rendered in complaint case No 8/85 of Delhi State Commission, Appeal No: 1263/2007 Mumbai State Commission, Review Petition No. 185/2005, Complaint Case No. 108/2008, Complaint No. 243/2007 are all of Delhi State Commission, Complaint No. 45/2007, 171/2008, 60/2008, and 264/2008 are all again decisions of Delhi State Commission and two more decisions of West Bengal State Commission. On hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and on going through the decisions relied upon by him, we are of the view that we find no substance and merit in the arguments of the counsel for the complainant. <br /> <br /> As evident from the admission of the complainant, the complainant had agreed to purchase a flat worth Rs.24,80,000/- and he has already paid Rs.21,40,000/-. As alleged by him, the Ops have not yet completed the construction of the flat and they are yet to deliver possession of the flat after completion of construction and transfer title of that flat by executing a registered title deed. Therefore nodoubt would lie in the mind of anybody that the complainant is asking for a direction to the Ops to complete the construction of the flat worth more than Rs.24 Lakhs asking for transfer of title of the flat worth more than 24 Lakhs and to put him in possession of that flat worth of Rs.24 Lakhs. Therefore the complainant is seeking title and possession of a property worth more than 20 Lakhs which substantive relief he is asking itself is sufficient to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Added to this the complainant is asking for 21% of the amount paid as per Clause 8 of the sale agreement, Rs.8,005/- and another Rs.3 Lakhs which all go together beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Even the copy of the booking form, the complainant produced also show that the complainant agreed to purchase the property worth Rs.24 Lakhs and thereafter he entered into an agreement of sale with Ops. Thus on taking consideration of all these admitted facts, they reveal that the relief sought by the complainant is nothing but asking for specific performance of an agreement of sale as per the terms and conditions of the agreement before this Forum in the form of complaining as deficiency in the service of the Ops. Hence we do not understand how the counsel for the complainant can still say that this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint when it can not receive and decide a complaint where the subject matter value exceeds Rs.20 Lakhs as provided under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.<br /> <br /> The counsel for the complainant further argued that Section 11 of the act only speaks of the value of the goods. Therefore transferring title of a flat and delivery of possession of that flat shall not be construed as goods and wherefore submitted that transfer of title and delivery of possession should not be taken into consideration for assessing the value for the purpose of Section 11 and stated that this Forum should only take into consideration the compensation claimed and nothing else. But we do not agree with his submission and we hold such arguments carries no weight having regard to the dictum found in Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 not only speaks of the value of the goods but it also refers to value of service. Then if we come to the definition of the word ‘service’, which is inclusive of housing construction. Therefore when an opponent takes up the assignment or a contract to provide service through constructing a flat and delivering possession of it would mean that he has agreed to render service in that manner for the consideration he receives. Hence if a developer causes deficiency in completing the construction and delivering possession of that flat worth more than 20 Lakhs that has to be considered as the service agreed to be rendered worth more than 20 Lakhs and that is required to be taken into consideration for assessing the value of the service for the purpose of deciding jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act . With this we have no hesitation to hold that the narrow meaning attached by the counsel to the wordings of Section 11 can not be entertained, because if the arguments of the counsel for the complainant as submitted is accepted then the purpose of Section 11 and the hierarchy of the Forum and Commissions would be defeated. The decisions relied upon by the counsel are not rendered on these facts as such the facts involved in those decisions to the facts in this case and therefore we concluded that the subject matter and relief claimed by the complainant is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and the complaint is to be returned to the party for presenting it before the proper authority. With this we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with all documents for presenting it before competent authority.<br />