1.      This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Richa Agarwal against M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd and Others. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant booked a flat in the project “Krescent Homes” of the opposite party on 7th August 2011. The total consideration of the flat is Rs. 55,97,610 and the complainant has paid till filing of the complaint a sum of Rs.48,08,501/-. The complainant has alleged that the possession has not been given by the opposite party to the complainant. The following prayers have been made in the complaint:-

I.  Direct the opposite parties to handover the possession of the flat bearing no. KRH01120901 in “KRESCENT HOMES” AT Jaypee Greens, Noida, UP and pay interest @24% per annum on the sum of Rs.48,08,501.32 (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Eight Thousand five Hundred One and Paise thirty Two only) which is the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties from the date of making the booking payment against the loss suffered by the complainant for the interest charged by the financial institution towards the loan availed.

II.  Direct the opposite parties to pay an interest of Rs.78,85,942.16 (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and Paise Sixteen only) calculated @ 24% per annum on the sum of Rs.48,08,501.32 (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Eight Thousand Five Hundred One and Paise Thirty Two only) which is the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties from the date of making the booking payment till 10.06.2018 against the loss suffered by the complainant for the interest charged by the financial institution towards the loan availed and further direct to pay the interest till the date of actual refund.

III.  Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) towards mental trauma, harassment and hardships suffered by the complainant; and

IV.  Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to the complainant towards the cost of litigation; and

V.  Pass any other or further relief in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage.  The learned counsel stated that this complaint was earlier filed before the State Commission Delhi and the same was returned on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Satisfying the territorial jurisdiction, the complainant then filed the complaint before the State Commission Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow being consumer complaint No. 164 of 2018. The State Commission Uttar Pradesh returned the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of the judgment of this Commission in Consumer case no 97of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. decided on 7.10.2016 (NC).

3.      Hence the present complaint has been filed before this Commission.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainant mentioned that the complainant has demanded the possession of the flat and interest on the amount of Rs.48,08,501/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite party from the date of booking till possession @24% per annum. Thus, the compensation comes to around Rs.78 lakhs and therefore the total of consideration along with the interest demanded crosses Rs.one crore and therefore this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

5.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the record. The provision in Section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for admission of the complaint has been kept to examine whether the complaint in the presented form can be admitted. The forum has to see whether the compensation has been demanded on some basis supported by some law or it is just an arbitrary amount mentioned to avail the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular consumer forum. In the present case, the compensation has been demanded in the form of interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of booking, whereas, the basic principle, when the main prayer is for possession, is that interest can only be allowed at the most, from the date of due possession. The date of due possession seems to be April 2015 in the present matter. Thus at the most, the complainant can claim interest from May 2015.  Moreover, the complainant has not given any basis for seeking 24% p.a interest. In the possession cases, this Commission is allowing interest ranging from 5% to 8% p.a on the amount deposited from the date of due possession for the period of delay. Even in refund cases, this Commission has held that for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction, interest at the rate of 18% per annum can be used for calculation purposes. This Commission in Gaurav Aneja & Anr. Vs. Supertech Limited, II (2018) CPJ 365 (NC) has held the following:-

3.  In such cases, neither this Commission nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 18% per annum.  Therefore, a claim for a higher interest would be an exaggerated and inflated claim without any legal basis and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.  If compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum is awarded, it will cover the losses of all kind, including the financial loss and distress and mental agony caused to the flat buyer, since the financial loss would not be more than 10-11% per annum, considering the rates of interest prevailing during the relevant period.” 

6.      Thus, from above examination, it is clear that complainant has unnecessarily inflated the interest amount to claim the jurisdiction of this Commission. Just because there is no court fees similar to the civil court, a complainant cannot demand unreasonable compensation and it is the duty of this Commission to see that such cases are filed before the appropriate forum. A preliminary examination of the complaint at the time of admission is necessary and the issue of unreasonable compensation can be seen at the time of admission as well, if a decision is to be taken on the pecuniary jurisdiction.

7.      From the above examination, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the total consideration is only Rs.55,97,610/- and including the compensation as examined above it will not cross the figure of Rs. one crore. Clearly, the State Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction if the compensation claimed by the complainant is examined on the above lines. It is true that the complainant had to file  her complaint before one Commission to another but in my view, the complainant is responsible herself as she should not have filed the complaint before the State Commission with such an inflated figure for compensation which was not justified as per the prevailing law and practice.

8.      Based on the above discussion, the consumer complaint No. 1567 of 2018 is not maintainable before this commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum i.e. the State Commission for filing the appropriate complaint. The complainant may file a fresh complaint before the State Commission Uttar Pradesh or may give an application for revival of the earlier complaint CC 164 or 2018 along with amended complaint. If such an application is presented before the State Commission Uttar Pradesh within a period of 3 months, the State Commission will revive the complaint No. 164 of 2018 and shall proceed to decide the same on merits. The order dated 21st May 2018 passed by the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh in consumer complainant No. 164 of 2018 shall not come in the way as the same is set aside treating this case also as a revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  It is made clear that the time taken before the State Commission Delhi and the State Commission Uttar Pradesh as well as before this Commission shall not be counted towards limitation, in case a fresh complaint is filed or the earlier complaint is revived.