Pronounced on 18th May, 2016
ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This complaint has been filed by three complainants against opposite party alongwith application under Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the case are that complainants who are siblings alongwith their spouses, booked their respective flats measuring 2150 sq. ft. with opposite party in July, 2007. Complainants entered into buyer’s agreement with opposite party on 6.4.2010 and possession of flats was to be handed over by September, 2011. Complainants have made payment up to 85% of the sale consideration but still even after lapse of four years, construction has not been completed. Opposite party has willfully caused inordinate delay in completing construction. It was further pleaded that buyer’s agreement prepared by opposite party are one sided and complainants are compelled to sign their agreement alongwith unfair and unreasonable clauses. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainants prayed for refund of amount of Rs. 1,30,71,403/- deposited with opposite party and Rs. 1,33,22,220/- as interest @ 18% p.a. Heard Learned Counsel for the complainant for admission purposes and perused record. Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that as complainants are sigblings having same interest on the same terms and conditions, complaint under Section 12 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable. Perusal of record reveals that complainant No. 2 booked a flat for a sum of Rs. 53,73,795/- whereas complainant No. 1 & 3 booked flat for a sum of Rs. 49,82,925/-. Complainants have claimed interest @ 18% p.a. which can be at the most 90% of the deposited amount and as per complainants, they have deposited 85% of the sale consideration amount, meaning thereby, every complainant is claiming about Rs. 27.00 lakhs as interest on the deposited amount and Rs. 5.00 lakhs as compensation and in such circumstances, every complainant’s individual case for recovery of amount alongwith compensation falls below Rs. 1.00 crore. Admittedly, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaints only if value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore. Value of goods alongwith compensation claimed by individual complainant does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and in such circumstances, their complaints are not maintainable before this Commission and they are supposed to file their complaints before appropriate State Commission. Had complainants filed complaints separately, they could not have been entertained by this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Under the garb of Section 12 (1) ( c) or Section 13 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act which are primarily meant for common services, e.g. facility of lift, deficiency in maintaining common areas or common facilities, complaints are not maintainable before this Commission. Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that as complainants are siblings, they can be permitted to file single complaint. This arguments is devoid of force in the light of aforesaid observation. As complainant’s individual claim does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, complaint is not maintainable before this Commission merely because complainants have moved application under Section 12 (1) ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, complaint filed by complainants is dismissed for mis-joinder of parties with liberty to complainants to file complaints before appropriate Forum for relief, if they so desire. -sd/- | 
