04.10.2016

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

        This order relates to admission of the instant case.

        Heard Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant who submitted that the complaint involves a total value of Rs.69,10,117/-and, therefore, well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission.

        It was further submitted that since the possession of the two garages, which includes the subject property, has not yet been delivered, the complaint bears continuous cause of action.

        In view of the above, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the complaint to be admitted.

        Perused the papers on record. It appears from para 5 of the complaint that the value of the booked property which includes the subject flat, two garages and club membership is Rs.1,34,96,383/-.

        It further appears from para 20 of the complaint that the  complainant, in addition to the value of the property, claimed compensation in respect of four items mentioned therein totalling an amount of Rs.69,10,117/-.

        Section 17(1)(a) (i) of the C P Act, 1986 provides that subject to other provisions of the Act, the State commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakh but does not exceed rupees one crore.

        It reveals that in the instant complaint the value of the subject property and the compensation claimed taken together comes to Rs.2,04,06,500/-which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, as envisaged under C P Act,1986 mentioned above.

       In the above context, we may place our reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in R P No.2679 of 2011 and R P No.2680 of 2011 [P.S.Srijan Enclave and Ors. vs. Sanjeev Bhargav and Sanjay Dewan] wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed “it is a settled law that the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a dispute regarding service relating to housing would include the value of the property as a whole as well as the compensation demanded in the complaint. Otherwise, a dispute related to a house property worth several crores would fall within the jurisdiction of a District Forum if the total deposit were any amount upto  Rs. 20 lakh. This obviously is not intention of the legislation. In view of this and in the interest of justice(as also accepted by the parties) it would be appropriate for the State Commission to adjudicate over the complaints filed by the respondents which the State commission has remanded to the District Forum”.

       We may rely further on the decision of the Hon’ble National commission reported in 1996(2)CPR26(NC)[M/S Quality Foils India Ltd. Vs.Bank of Madura Ltd. Anr.] wherin the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the total value of goods and/or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora.

       Keeping in view the statutory provision laid down in the C P Act, 1986 and also in view of the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission as mentioned above, we are of the view that the complaint lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to be entertained by this commission.

       The complaint, therefore, is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.