DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER 1. This first appeal has been filed by Manish Kumar Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaint No. 237 of 2011 whereby the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the said complaint. - The State Commission, vide its Order dated 28.03.2016, had dismissed the complaint. The relevant part of the Order reads as under:
“7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. It is not clear as to how the second complaint is maintainable when complainant had already filed one complaint in District Forum-Gautam Budh Nagar and lost there in. It is also not clear as to how he has created the territorial jurisdiction of two different courts for the same flat. Either it could be at Gautam Budh Nagar or in Delhi. 8. Even if the complaint is treated as one for remaining relief regarding excess area which came to knowledge of complainant subsequently in reply under RTI Act, the present complaint is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Complainant cannot vex OP twice for same cause of action. He had not reserved his right and sought permission from first court in Gautam Budh Nagar to sue for relief omitted by him initially. 9. Further suit filed by wife of complainant is pending disputing the entitlement of complainant to possession of flat. FIR is pending in which allegations of forgery are involved. All these show that complicated questions are involved and same are beyond the jurisdiction of consumer courts. 10. This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Since total of all reliefs claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs which is within pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the total valuation of all reliefs as claimed in the complaint on date of filing was Rs.28,73,231/- and as such it very well fell within pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of para 27 of the complaint along with the prayer clause filed before the State Commission, it is evident that the total relief sought amounts to Rs.28,73,231/- and the complaint had been filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The section 17 of the Act 1986 defines the jurisdiction of State Commission as follows: “17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission.- [(1)] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) to entertain- (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and ‘compensation’, if any, claimed [exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore]; and (ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and (b) -- 6. In the case of Renu Singh Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., C.C. No. 1703 of 2018 decided on 26.10.2021, this Commission has held as under: “26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, our answers are as follows:— (i) The Full Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC) lays down the law correctly on the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction. (ii) What should be the value of goods or services where the refund of paid money has been sought? Answer : - Sale consideration, which was agreed between the parties for buying the goods or hiring or availing the services is relevant for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in cases of refund also. (iii) What should be the period for which the interest should be taken as compensation for adding to the value of goods or services for the purpose of availing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum? Answer : - For the purposes of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, the rate of interest or period of interest as claim in the complaint alone has to be examined. However, the claim has to be proved in accordance with law and the relief is always subject to law of limitation and rule of estoppel and acquiescence. In view of power of condonation of delay as provided under Section 24-A (2) of the Act, the limit of two years for calculation of interest cannot be fixed either for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction or for granting the relief. 7. Applying the ratio of decision in the case of Renu Singh Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that the State Commission cannot misinterpret an explicit provision without providing any justification for the same. In the present case, evidently it is clear that the total sum of the amounts claimed in the prayer clause exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs and hence, the State Commission ought to have decided the case on its merits rather than dismissing the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above, the impugned Order dated 28.03.2016 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the State Commission with the request that it may decide the case on its merits as per the law after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce their evidence and advance their arguments. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.12.2023. 9. The appeal stands disposed of. 10. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. | 
