JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

One Mrs. Sunita Yadav had booked a residential flat with the opposite party on 28.7.2008, for an agreed sale consideration of Rs.26,92,800/- and entered into an agreement dated 20.7.2007 with the opposite party. As per clause 11(a) of the agreement, the construction was likely to be completed within 30 months on commencement of construction on receipt of building plans and all other approvals, subject to force majure circumstances. The aforesaid allotment was purchased by the complainants from Mrs. Sunita Yadav on 28.7.2008. Their case is that a sum of Rs.25,58,160/- has already been paid to the opposite party but the possession has not been offered to them. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission with the following prayers:-

“b. Award Rs.36,83,750/- towards interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of each instalment made by the complainants till;

c. Award pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the time the whole of the amount is paid to the complainants by the opposite party;

d. Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation and damages for the acute agony and distress caused to the complainants on account of the deficiency in service of the opposite parties;

e. Direct the opposite parties to pay litigation expenses incurred by the complainants in pursuing instant complaint;”

2.      Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, confers pecuniary jurisdiction on this Commission to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods purchased or the value of the services hired or availed, as the case may be,  along with the compensation, if any, claimed, exceeds Rs.1 crore. As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 -  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. dated 7.10.2016, which is binding on this bench, the value of the service in such cases  is the sale consideration  agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the seller. The agreed sale consideration in this case, as already noted, was Rs.26,92,800/-.  Though the complainants have claimed interest @ 18% p.a. along with compensation quantified at Rs.40 lakhs for mental agony and distress caused to them, neither this Commission nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded that kind of compensation in addition to compensation in the form of interest @ 18% pa., claiming such an amount as compensation, in addition to compensation by way of interest at the rate of 18% p.a,.  where the agreed sale consideration is about Rs.26 lakhs is wholly untenable, having no basis or sanctity in law. Such an exaggerated and inflated compensation cannot even be considered by this Commission since entertaining complaints wherein such an exaggerated and highly inflated  claim without any basis is made, will disturb the scheme of division of jurisdiction envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act which confers pecuniary jurisdiction upon the District Forum where the value of the goods or services along with compensation does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs and upon the State Commission where such aggregate exceeds Rs.20 lakhs but does not exceed Rs.1 crore. If compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% p.a. is calculated on the amount paid by the complainants or her processor-in-interest and is added to the agreed sale consideration, the aggregate does not come anywhere near Rs.1 crore. Even if some token compensation for the mental agony is added to the aforesaid amount, the resultant figure would reach nowhere near Rs.1 crore.

3.      The complaint is, therefore, not maintainable before this Commission and ought to have been filed before the concerned State Commission.

4.      The learned counsel for the complainants states that this Commission has entertained a complaint without noticing that the agreed value of the service and the compensation did not exceed Rs.1 crore. If this is so, the mistake, if any is bound to be detected at an appropriate stage and the complaint will obviously not be decided on merits by this Commission as and when such a mistake is pointed out or otherwise noticed. But, that would not justify the repetition of the alleged mistake if any, committed by this Commission.

5.      The learned counsel for the complainants states that the complainants are senior citizens, one of them being 87 years and the other being aged about 76 years. The age of the complainant, in my view, would be wholly irrelevant.

6.      The learned counsel for the complainants, at this stage seeks permission to withdraw the complaint.  Though withdrawal of the complaint after passing of such a speaking order is not normally allowed but, considering the age of the complainants the request is accepted and the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the complainants to file fresh complaint before the concerned State Commission after suitably modified the prayers made therein.