HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This is to consider a complaint case under section 35 read with section 37 & 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') filed by the complainant.  The complainant has filed the instant complaint case praying for the following reliefs:- 

“i) An order for directing all opposite party No. 1 to 5 jointly or severally to deliver the peaceful khas and vacant possession in habitable condition of the owner’s allocation as per terms of the Development Agreement dated 21.01.2016 and Supplementary Development Agreement dated 25.01.2016 in favour of the petitioner of his share; and

ii) An order for directing all opposite party nos. 1 to 5 jointly or severally to pay the delay compensation per month basis in favour of the petitioner; and

iii) An order for directing all opposite party nos. 1 to 5 jointly or severally to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) as orally agreed in favour of the petitioner; and

iv) An order for directing all opposite party nos. 1 to 5 jointly or severally to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lacs) only for harassment, mental agony, and for negligent act and conducting the deficiency in service; and

v) All cost of the proceeding; and

vi)All other relief/ reliefs as entitled to get in law and equity.”

2. The fact of the complaint case is that the complainant and other 6 persons being the co owners of the land have entered into a development agreement on 20.01.2016 with the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 for raising construction of the building.  Accordingly, land owners executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 authorizing them to raise construction.  Non fulfilment of the said promise as per the agreement laid the complainants to lodge this complaint case before this Commission.  

3. It transpires from the petition of complaint that the complainant has valued the complaint case at Rs.87,39,998. It also transpires from the e-Assessment slip issued by the Office of the ADSR, Bidhannagar, District North 24 Parganas that the value of the total land was 87,39,998/- and the complainants is one of the owners of the land among other co owners.  

4. On careful perusal of the petition of complaint it appears to us that the complainant has filed this complaint case and he has sought for relief for their portion only and he has prayed for the enforcement of the agreement so far it relates to him. This being the position the valuation of the instant complaint case should have been done for his undivided portion only but in this case he has showed the valuation of the whole property which includes other co sharers who are not seeking any relief before us. 

5. Under these facts and circumstances within the ambit of the instant complaint case does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Since this Commission will now have jurisdiction for valuation of Rs.50,00,000 to Rs. 2 crores. 

6. Thus on consideration of the facts as discussed above by the materials placed before us and matter applicable to this case, we are of the opinion that this Commission has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint filed by the complainant alone.  

7. In the result, the petition of complaint be and the same is returned to the filing Advocate of the complainant for presenting the same before the proper Commission.

8. The complaint case is thus disposed of accordingly.