1. This first appeal has been filed by M/s. Mridul Estate Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 16.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Complainant No.127 of 2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission in respect of a flat along with two parking spaces on September 25th, 2004. Herein dispute was in respect of some additional amount demanded by the opposite party. The complaint was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 15.07.2015. Against this order of the State Commission, the opposite party/builder filed First Appeal No.806 of 2015 before this Commission, which was accepted by this Commission vide its order dated 25.04.2016. The order of the State Commission dated 15.07.2015 was set aside and the matter was remanded for disposal of all objections of builder taken in written version and to decide the complaint. After the case was taken up by the State Commission, the State Commission vide its order dated 16.12.2016 dismissed the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 3. Hence the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that the complaint was very much maintainable before the State Commission as the same was already decided once on merits by the State Commission vide its order dated 15.07.2015. However, the opposite party preferred an appeal against that order and the National Commission remanded the matter to the State Commission for deciding all the objections raised by the opposite party in the written statement. How now, the State Commission has raised the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction and has dismissed the complainant for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. 5. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the material on record. The total consideration of the flat is Rs.2,44,00,000/- and after the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Commission in C.C. No. 97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.decided on 7.10.2016, the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been settled. This Commission in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has decided as under:- “Issue No.(i) It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Issue No.(iii) The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.” 6. In the light of the above mentioned decision of the Larger Bench of this Commission, I find no error in the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission at the appellate stage. Accordingly, FA No.310 of 2017 is dismissed in limine. | 
