One Ashu Raheja purchased a villa bearing no. 078 located in Tower- S1 of a project namely “Supertech Up Country” which the OP was to develop in Yamuna Expressway area.  Later, the aforesaid allotment was purchased by the complainant from Ashu Raheja and consequent thereto, a fresh allotment letter was issued by the OP in favour of the complainant allotting the aforesaid villa to him for a consideration of Rs.46,30,407/-.  In terms of the said allotment letter, the possession was to be delivered by May 2014.  The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the villa has not been offered to him.  He is therefore, before this Commission seeking possession of the villa alongwith compensation. 

2.      When this complaint came up for hearing on 12.05.2017, the learned counsel for the complainant stated on instructions that the complainant was not interested in taking possession and wanted only refund of the amount paid by him alongwith compensation in the form of interest. 

3.      The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has taken a preliminary objection that this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

4.      In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by a consumer alongwith compensation if any, claimed by him exceeds Rs.1 Crore.  As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in 07.10.2016 in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed in such cases means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder.  The amount paid to the builder in this case comes only to Rs.46,30,407/-.  

5.      In a case where possession is being sought by the allottee, this Commission has not awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate exceeding 12% per annum.  If interest from the committed date of possession on the amount of Rs.46,30,407/- is calculated @ 12% per annum and is added to the sale consideration of Rs.46,30,407/-, the aggregate comes to much much below Rs.1 Crore.  Even if compensation in the form of simple interest @ 18% per annum is calculated and added to the sale consideration agreed between the flat buyer and the builder, the aggregate would be much below Rs.1 Crore.  Therefore, from whatever angle I may look at it, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

6.      The next question which arises for consideration is as to what course of action should be adopted in this case considering that the consumer complaint is pending for about two years and evidence has already been led by the parties.  Confronted with such a situation, following was the view taken by this Commission in CC No.198/2015 Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters decided on 31.01.2017:

12.    Now I am coming to the complaints which do not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  The question which arises for consideration as to what course of action should be adopted in respect of these complaints which have been pending with this Commission for the last about 1½ years.  One course can be to dismiss these complaints with liberty to such complainants to institute fresh complaints before the concerned State Commission.  The aforesaid course of action, in my view, would not be fair and reasonable, considering that the complaints are pending for about 1½ years and at one point of time, this Commission held the view that the market value of the flat as on the date of filing of the complaint could be treated as the value of the service in such matters.  In my view, the appropriate course of action in such matters would be to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 7 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Though, the aforesaid provision has not been expressly extended to this Commission by Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, the principle underlying the said provision can in appropriate cases, be adopted by this Commission, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, while simultaneously ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the service provider by adopting such a course of action.  The opposite party in these cases has filed its written version on the merits of the complaints.  It has also led evidence on merits.  No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the complaints are returned for being presented before the concerned State Commission, with a direction to the State Commission to decide them afresh, taking into consideration, the pleadings, affidavits and the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the parties before this Commission provided an opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional evidence and if filed, such additional evidence is also considered along with the evidence, which was filed before this Commission.  The aforesaid course of action besides ensuring a prompt and expeditious disposal of the complaints by a competent Consumer Forum will also ensure that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner.

7.      The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

(i)      The complaint be returned to the complainant, along with an endorsement containing the date of presentation and return of the complaint, the name of the complainant presenting the complaint and a brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint;

(ii)      The complaint shall be returned within one week from today, along with the requisite endorsement and can be presented before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within two weeks thereafter;

(iii)     The parties shall appear before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at 10.30 a.m. on 10.07.2018;

1. The State Commission need not issue a fresh notice requiring the parties to appear before it on the aforesaid date.
2. The State Commission shall decide the complaints in terms of Para 12 of this Order.
3. There shall be no order as to costs.