JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

         The petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking the following reliefs:-

  “i)       Direct the O.P. to complete the in-completions in construction of allotted Booth immediately and provide possession of Booth No. 12, so that the Complainant is in a position to start its business in the booth for earning livelihood and till the booth is developed as per conditions of allotment, the O.P. may be directed to pay interest @ 18 percent Per annum on the amount received as advance for the period of its receipt till the possession of booth is handed over after completions.

  ii)       Direct the O.P. to pay the penalty @ Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month for delay as specified in conditions of allotment of booth and also to withdraw the interest and other charges illegally demanded and insisted by the O.P. as the possession has not been given.

iii)        Award damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 100,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment caused at the instance of the O.P.

iv)        Award litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-.”

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 22.04.2014, issued the following directions:-

1.        To make payment of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in not getting the allotment letter/agreement for allotment executed from the complainant and arbitrarily changing the allotment of booth no. 12 to booth no. 17.
2. To restore the allotment of booth no. 12 to the complainant.  After the reallotment, the complainant shall have to make the balance payment as per time schedule in the letter Annexure R-2 within one month of the restoration of the allotment of booth no. 12, failing which, Ops shall be entitled to recover interest @ 9% p.a. on the instalments, which have already become due.
3. Ops shall not demand any amount of Rs. 2,33,310/- towards EDC from the complainant.
4. To make payment of an amount of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.”    

4.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the respondent approached the State Commission at Chandigarh, by way of an appeal.  The said Commission, vide impugned order dated 18.07.2014, held that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint, since the value of the services availed by the complainant and the other reliefs sought by him was beyond Rs. 20 lakhs.  Accordingly, the order, passed by the District Forum was set aside with liberty to the complainant/petitioner to file a new complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before us, by way of this revision petition.

5.       It is not in dispute that the booth in question was sold to the petitioner/complainant for a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs.  Therefore, the valuation of the first relief sought by him was Rs. 18 lakhs.  The second prayer made by the petitioner was quashing of the demand of interest and other charges by the respondent.  He also wanted payment of penalty at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month for the delay in handing over the possession of the booth, which was sold/allotted to him.  The demand, which the petitioner/complainant challenged by way of prayer no. 2 was for Rs. 2,05,000/-.  Thus, the value of reliefs no. 1 and 2 itself comes to more than Rs. 20 lakhs.  If the amount of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh is added to the aforesaid amount, the valuation exceeds Rs. 21 lakhs.  Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was limited to Rs. 20 lakhs, the State  Commission was absolutely right in taking a view that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  Therefore, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the State Commission. The petitioner/complainant has already been given liberty to file a new complaint on the same cause of action on which the complaint filed before the District Forum was based.  We find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.