The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.03.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 16/2018. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31.08.2018 of the District Forum in consumer complaint no. 66/2016. In the present revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, have challenged the impugned order only on the ground that the State Commission has wrongly concluded that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the State Commission was of Rs.20 lakhs. The consideration money of the subject property was about Rs.18 lakhs. The respondents / complainants had also sought Rs.1 lakh as compensation and they had also claimed interest on the amount which they had deposited with the petitioners. It is submitted that if thus calculated the total amount comes to more than Rs.20 lakhs and hence the order of the District Forum was without pecuniary jurisdiction. It is argued that the State Commission had failed to consider this fact and hence the order of the State Commission is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. 2. We have perused the file. It is an admitted fact that the consideration amount of the subject property was Rs.18 lakhs. In the prayer clause, the complainants had made the following prayers: 10. That this Ld. Forum has the jurisdiction, both pecuniary and territorial to adjudicate upon this case. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is prayed that your honour may graciously be pleased to hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and direct the opposite parties to remove the said deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by way of: Either by delivering the possession of the plot of land, mentioned in the schedule-B below, by executing and registering the deed of sale in connection with the said plot in favour of the complainant or by refunding of Rs.15,21,000/-(Rupees fifteen lac twenty one thousand) only, which has already been paid by the complainant, along with interest; and Giving Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) only as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment; and Giving Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only towards litigation cost; and / or To pass such other further order or orders as your honour may deem fit and proper.
3. From the perusal of the prayer clause it is apparent that first prayer of the complainants was delivery of the possession of the subject property and registration of the sale deed. The value of the subject property was Rs.18 lakhs. In alternate the complainants had claimed the refund of Rs.15,21,000/- which they paid towards consideration amount of the subject property. They had also claimed Rs.1,00,000 as compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost. If we total this entire amount it comes to less than Rs.20 lakhs, i.e. the total comes to Rs.19,25,000/-. The argument of learned counsel is that since interest had also been claimed by the complainants therefore amount of interest should also be added. This argument has no merit because although the complainants had claimed interest but they had not mentioned any particular figure of interest on the complaint. Therefore merely the word interest does not exclude the jurisdiction of the District Forum which is so clearly available in law. The State Commission vide impugned order has rightly dismissed this contention of the petitioner. 4. It is also a settled preposition of law that jurisdiction has to be considered on the basis of facts disclosed in the complaint. 5. We find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. 6. The present revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. |
