Order No.04 10.04.2019

Heard the complainant and ld. Advocate on the point of admission of this complaint petition and perused the documents in the case record.  It appears that the complainant being a resident of Chinsurah, Hooghly constructed a new building with the intention to decorate his building contacted the opposite party and after inspection the complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- on their demand towards advance booking at the place of work.  They agreed to carried out flooring, wall pain, sealing paint and others with special material and skilled labour.  The complainant visited the opposite party office at Salt Lake and discussed the matter with Mr. Salil Sarkar and Smt. Madhumita Sarkar who assured him not to be worried regarding their work and shouldered the entire responsibility.  The opposite party assured the petitioner to complete the work within six months, so the complainant handed over Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.6.2014 to the opposite party.  Thereafter the opposite party started their works but failed to complete the works as committed by them.  It is also stated that the complainant during the performance of their works paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on different installments at the place of work at  Chinsurah by issuing cheques of banks.  Subsequently he paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for outstanding work on 27.2.2016.  Dispute cropped up when the opposite party failed to complete the unfinished work and also avoiding the complainant.  Then the complainant sent a letter on 7.3.2017 stating to complete unfinished works and to produce proper accounts of the project.  Then the opposite party sent a person on 13.3.2017, who prepared a list of pending works and undertook to finish all unfinished works but of no result.  The opposite party failed to discharge their legal obligation assured to the complainant.  So, the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying direction upon the opposite party to pay compensation amounting to Rs.8,10,000/-;  Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of injury, Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, 6% interest from 13.3.2017 till realization for harassment, inconvenience, frustration  and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

It appears from the complaint petition that the complainant already paid total sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in different dates to the opposite parties and he prayed compensation amounting to Rs.8,10,000/-.  But the valuation of the property shown in the prayer portion as Rs.1,42,000/-.  So, the valuation of the work done of Rs.25,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- should be taken into consideration while ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the complaint petition.  As per complaint petition the value of the goods or services means the consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer for the goods purchased or the services hired and availed of.  Hon’ble National Commission in Ambarish Kumar Sukla & 21 others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure  Pvt. Ltd. held that the word value referred in sections tents to suggest that it is the market price of the goods or the services as the case may be, which when added to the amount of compensation if any, claimed in the complaint so determined the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum on an deeper consideration, we are of the view that it is the price of the goods or the services as the case may be agreed to be paid by the consumer which would be relevant for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.  Lastly, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint petition need to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  According to Section-11 of the C.P. Act, 1986 this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the cases not more than Rs.20,00,000/- but in the instant case the value of the goods or services and compensation reckoned to Rs.33,00,000/- which is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum.  So, the complaint petition lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. As such the complaint petition is not admitted. Hence, it is

Ordered

That the C.C. No.38/2019 be and the same is dismissed being not admitted.