This complaint is posted for considering the written arguments filed earlier. The complainant has filed this complaint seeking deficiency in service in respect of such as allotting car parking as per sanction plan, for completion of the civil works in common area, for payment of damages of Rs.5,00,000/-, in respect of the flat he purchased in the apartment constructed by the O.P, in respect of FF-101. The sale deed produced by the complainant reveals that he purchased the flat for Rs.23,02,500/- on 05.06.2014. The value of the flat is taken into consideration to exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum.
Three members of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi on 07.10.2016 in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructures Pvt., Ltd., have held that if the value of the flat is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum or Commission irrespective of the value of the deficiency to be cleared, the complaint has to be returned to the appropriate authority. It is held as (i) in a situation where the position of the housing unit has already been delivered to the complainant and may be sale deed etc., also executed but some deficiencies are pointed out in construction/development of the property, where the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined, taking the value of such property as a whole OR the extent deficiency alleged is to be considered for the purpose of determining such pecuniary jurisdiction.
The following judgments are brought to the notice the counsel for the respective parties.
It is held that: “It is the value of the goods or service, as the case may be , and not the value or the cost of removing the deficiency in service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”
It is also held by NCDRC New Delhi in Revision Petition No.3496/2017in Gurumuch Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and othersagainst the order in Appeal No.464/2017 of Hon’ble State Commission Punjab dated 11.10.2017held by relying on the above decision supra, the total value of the goods or services provided is to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer FORA and not the partial amount deposited by an allottee. The State Commission as well as the District Forum have rightly taken the view that in the instant case the total price of the flat was Rs.37,00,000/- was evident from the letter of intent for allotment issued by O.Ps. Considering the total value of the flat, the matter did not lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. It is evident, therefore, that the orders passed by the Consumer FORA below or based on a correct interpretation of the orders passed by the larger bench of this Commission as well as the provisions of law as contained in Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In view of the above decisions, and in view of the facts mentioned in the first para, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the present complaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdictions of this Forum. Hence this Complaint is ordered to be returned for proper presentation. Office to follow the procedure for return of the complaint as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 10 (a) of the C.P.C. Further office is also directed to return to the complainant, the documents and extra set of Complaint and documents filed by the complainant.
