The complainant who is petitioner in R.P. No.2105 of 2015 and respondent in R.P. No.110 of 2015 booked a residential flat with the DLF Home Developers Ltd. petitioner in R.P. No.110 of 2015 and respondent in R.P. No.2105 of 2015, for a consideration of Rs.5315999/-. He made a total payment of Rs.1437689/- to the builder. Relying upon a newspaper report dated 12.2.2009. The complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him along with compensation. The complaint was resisted by the builder on several grounds including that since the sale consideration was Rs.53 lakhs, the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. During pendency of this complaint, the builder refunded a sum of Rs.824951.84 to the complainant. The District Forum vide its order dated 16.8.2012 directed the builder to refund the  balance amount of Rs.612542.74 along with interest @ 6% p.a. and Rs.1 lakh as compensation for harassment.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the builder approached the concerned State Commission by way an appeal. Since the complainant was also not satisfied with the said order, he also preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 11.11.2014, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals thereby upholding the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, both the parties are before this Commission by way of two separate revision petitions.

2.      In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint if the value of the goods bought or the services hired or availed as the case might be along with compensation if any, claimed in the complaint did not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission dated 7.10.2016 in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the value of service in such a case would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. Admittedly, the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the complainant to the builder for the flat booked by him was more than Rs.53 lakhs. Therefore, the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It would be appropriate to note here that a specific objection with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint was taken in the written version filed before the District Forum. Unfortunately, the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction was not addressed either by the District Forum or by the State Commission. However, the fact remains that since the value of the services hired or availed by the complainant was more than Rs.20 lakhs, the District Forum did not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.

3.      The next question which arises for consideration is as to what should be the appropriate course of action to be followed in such a case where the consumer complaint was instituted  before the District Forum in the year 2009 and 9 years from the said institution have already lapsed. Confronted with such a situation, the following was the view taken by this Commission in Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in CC No.198 of 2015 and connected matters  decided on 31.1.2017.

“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.”

4.           For the reasons stated hereinabove, both the revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

(i)      The impugned orders are set aside.

(ii)      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;

(iii)     The complaint shall be returned to the complainant within two weeks from today, along with the requisite endorsement;

(iv)    The complainant, on receiving the said complaint from the District Forum wants to be presented to the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Therefore, he shall present the same before the  Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within one week of receiving the same from the District Forum.

(v)     The State Commission need not issue a fresh notice requiring the parties to appear before it on the aforesaid date.

(vi)    The State Commission shall proceed with the complaint, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, both oral as well as documentary already led before the District Forum from the stage at which it was decided by the District Forum meaning thereby from the stage of final hearing, along with additional affidavit evidence if any which the parties may choose to produce, within four weeks of the parties appearing before the concerned State Commission in compliance of this order.

(vii)    The parties shall appear before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 7.5.2018.

(viii)   The State Commission shall decide the complaint afresh within three months of the parties appearing before it. While deciding the complaint afresh in terms of this order, the State Commission shall not in any manner be influenced by the orders which this Commission has set aside in these revision petitions.