REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had decided to buy a residential property after undertaking a recce. The father of the complainant desired to book a flat with the respondent in a project Parsvnath Privilege, Greater Noida. Complainant’s father then executed the flat buyers agreement on 13.06.2007 whereby Flat no. T 1 – 703, in Tower no. T 1, with a total cost of Rs.52,86,750/-. The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant after the expiry of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction of the particular block in which the flat was located, failing which the respondent would pay a sum of Rs.5 per sq. ft of the super area of the flat per month for the period of delay. Subsequently, the name of the complainant was substituted in place of the father of the complainant on 13.06.2007. On execution of the said agreement, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,21,687/-. In addition to this she paid the following amounts:

1. < >< >

   Direct the respondent to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.1,49,18,347.5 which includes Rs.47,20,996.50 as the principal amount which the respondent is liable to pay the complainant for in respect of allotment of a flat in the said project plus Rs.1,01.,97,351/- being the simple interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount till the filing of the present complaint;

2. Direct the respondent to pay Rs.97,13,250/-, i.e., the difference between the market value of the flat and the cost of the flat;

3. Direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as costs towards mental agony and harassment;

4. Direct the respondent to pay legal costs including but not restricted to cost of the pleader;

5. Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the interest of justice.

3.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the argument on maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction as the cost of service was less than rupees one crore. It was obvious from the prayer that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint with an inflated claim to come within the jurisdiction of the National Commission. Even the legal notice dated 10.08.2016 to the opposite party the complainant had only asked for termination of the agreement and refund of Rs.47,20,996.50 with interest @ 24% per annum from the dates on which the amounts were paid, till the date on which the dues were finally cleared. However, in the prayer clause, they have added a prayer of Rs.97,13,250/-, i.e., difference between the market value of the flat and Rs.5 lakh towards mental agony.

4.     A coordinate Bench of this Commission in a recent judgment in the matter of Muneesh Malthora vs Era Land Marks (India) Ltd., in Consumer Complaint no. 1268 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2015 held as under:

“The scheme of Consumer Protection Act provides for the hierarchy of Consumer Foras, namely, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Act has specifically demarcated the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras at aforesaid three levels to entertain the original consumer complaint. Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Act provides that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakh but does not exceed rupees one crore. Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act provides that National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, exceeds rupees one crore.

2.       Recently we have experienced a trend where the complainants with a view to short circuit the system and defeat the hierarchy of the system, file the consumer complaints with inflated claims with a view to bring the cases within the jurisdiction of National Commission. This practice needs to be curbed out because it encourages forum shopping and also tend to short circuit the procedure for disposal of complaint. The instant complaint is also an example where the complainant has filed the complaint with an inflated claim with a view to directly file the consumer complaint in the National Commission against the spirit and object of the Act.

9.       The complainant in the alternative has claimed a sum of Rs.1,17,60,000/- claiming the same to be market value of the flat, the aforesaid plea on the face of it appears to be figment of imagination of the complainant.  On perusal of the complaint, I find that on one hand it is claimed that flat is not yet complete, on the other hand the complainant has put a preposterous figure of Rs.1,17,60,000/- as market rate of the flat for which he has paid Rs.19,96,114/- without quoting even a single instance of sale of similarly located flat at such a high rate of Rs.8000/- per sq. ft.  It appears that aforesaid claim has been made just to inflate the amount of relief with a view to defeat the hierarchy of the consumer forum based upon the pecuniary jurisdiction.

15.     I do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant.  The present market value of the subject flat in view of the clear provision of Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act has no relevance in this case.  As per the above noted provision, the value of the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction comprises of value of goods or services and the compensation.  The judgment of the Coordinate Bench relied upon by the complainants is of no avail to them.  The Coordinate Bench in para 16 of the judgment has dealt with the issue pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. Relevant observations of Coordinate Bench are reproduced as under:

16.    It was next contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the sale consideration paid by the complainants was less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- the complaint is maintainable before the concerned State Commission and not before this Commission. Again, I find no merit in the contention. The case of the complainants is that current market value of such apartments is not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. ft. calculated accordingly the current market value of the individual flats booked by the complainants comes to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in every complaint. One of the prayers made in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to handover possession of the flat to the complainants. For the purpose of this relief, the current market value of the flat would be the pecuniary value of the service and since the said value is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in each case, it cannot be disputed that only this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

16.     On reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the above said observation of the coordinate bench have been passed without taking into consideration Section 21 (a) (i) of the Act which provides for the formula for computing the value of the pecuniary jurisdiction.   It appears that the above noted provisions of  the Act was not brought to the notice of the learned Bench.  Therefore, in our considered view, the findings of the coordinate Bench being dehors Section 21 (a) (i) is of no help to the complainant.

17.     I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Division Bench.    In view of the discussion above, the value of service allegedly availed by the compensation and compensation which can be reasonably claimed would be Rs.19,96,114/- plus 18% interest on the said amount for five years, which would be somewhere around Rs.18.00 lacs approximately.  If we add the aforesaid two amounts and compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, the total value would be much less than Rs.1.00 crore.  Therefore, in view of section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. Instant complaint has been filed with a clear attempt to inflate the value of the relief which amounts to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit the hierarchy of the consumer foras.  Complaint is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate fora”.

5.     Learned counsel for the complainant had brought to our notice an order of this Coordinate Bench wherein 18% interest had been awarded. The interest to be awarded would depend on the facts of each case as also the preventive rate of interest at a particular point of time. Even if interest is calculated @ 18% from the date on which the amounts had been paid, then too it roughly comes to an amount of Rs.43,00,000/- adding to Rs.5.00 lakh for mental agony, the total amount is below rupees one crore.

6.     In view of section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The instant complaint has been filed with a clear attempt to inflate the value of the relief which amounts to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit the hierarchy of the Consumer Fora. The complaint is accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate fora.