1. The following are the prayers made in the complaint: (i) that the opposite parties and each of them be directed to forthwith pay an amount of Rs.21,75,162.75/- to the complainants, which is inclusive of the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited with the opposite party No.1 and also interest accrued thereon @18% per annum calculated on and from 19th February 2008 till 31st August 2014; (ii) that the Hon’ble National Commission may be pleased to direct the opposite parties and each of them to make payment of further interest to the complainants on the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- @18% per annum on and from 1st September 2014, till the date of actual payment; (iii) that the Hon’ble National Commission may be pleased to impose costs of Rs.10,00,000/- on the opposite parties towards damages and prestige loss occurred due to high-handedness of the opposite parties; (iv) that the Hon’ble National Commission may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to make further payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the cost incurred for litigation. 2. Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the extent it is relevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The amounts claimed by the complainant are (i) a sum of Rs.21,75,162.75/- which includes the amounts of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by him with opposite party No.1, (ii) interest on the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum from 19-02-2008 to 31-08-2014 and (iii) further interest on the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 01-09-2014 and (iv) cost amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The complaint was drawn on 01-09-2014 and came to be filed on 12-09-2014. By no stretch, the aggregate of the amounts claimed by the complainant can exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In fact the cost of litigation cannot even be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is, thus, quite obvious that the complaint ought to have been instituted before the State Commission. A perusal of the record shows that in fact the complaint was instituted before the State Commission only and it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13-08-2014 with liberty to approach this Commission. In my opinion the order of the State Commission, permitting withdrawal of the complaint on the ground that it did not have pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter and granting opportunity to approach this Commission by way of a fresh complaint was absolutely wrong, since the value of the services involved and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant, for being presented before the concerned State Commission, within four weeks from today. The complainant shall appear before the State Commission on 27-10-2014. |
