Judgement HON’BLE SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT FACTS The complaint case in short is that: - The petitioner who was the sole and absolute owner of the plot of land measuring about 203.93 sq. mt. being premises no.03-075 in Street no.75 (previous Plot no.92 in Block No. AA under Category HIG – I), in Action Area – I, New Town Police Station had entered into a registered agreement for development with the respondents in respect of the said plot of land on certain terms and conditions on 17.08.2017. Though the said project of development was completed three years ago, the respondents did not provide the possession letter to the petitioner causing serious hardship to him. The respondents also did not pay damages @ Rs.20,000/- per month which he is entitled to as per the development agreement. It is further alleged that the respondents sold a portion of the common area as a car parking space in clear violation of the terms of the development agreement. As per agreement, the respondents were to provide 8 numbers of electric meter to the petitioner, but they failed to provide the same. There are other allegations of using sub-standard materials used in the construction by the respondents. The lift which was provided, is also a sub-standard one. So, the petitioner through his Ld. Advocate by serving the notice upon the respondents on 26.04.2021 asked them to make good the losses suffered by him. But the respondents did not do anything on receipt of the notice. He also made a complaint before the Consumer Affairs & FBP, Government of West Bengal where respondents also did not turn up. So, the petitioner by filing this case has claimed several reliefs in the form of direction upon the respondents to install new electricity connection, provide 8 numbers of electric meter to the petitioner and replacement of the lift and removal other defects and compensation etc. Respondents have contested this case by filing a written version. Both parties have filed their evidence, exchanged questionnaires and replies thereto. Initially, the complaint was filed against three respondents. However, subsequently, the name of respondent no.1 was expunged. During argument, respondents have filed one separate application dated 19.04.2023 challenging the maintainability of the instant complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction which was also heard along with the complaint. The said application is registered as MA/51/2023. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? FINDINGS In this case respondents are found to have contended with all seriousness that the instant case is not at all maintainable before this Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction for which they have filed separate application during Argument. The copy of the said application though was served upon the petitioner, but no written objection was filed by him against their application. According to them the project cost of the development agreement dated 17.08.2017 was Rs.1,73,71,460/- which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. From the document filed on behalf of the respondents we find that apart from the owner’s allocation, the petitioner got Rs.65,00,000/- from the respondents. The owner’s allocation as per the agreement included the entire third floor and entire fourth floor and garage no.2 & 3 on the ground floor of the (G + 4) storied building together with entire proportionate share including common areas lift facilities etc. The document produced by the petitioner further reveals the market value of the land is Rs.1,73,71,460/- and the (G + 4) building was raised on such land following the development agreement between the petitioner and the respondents. As against this contention of the respondents, petitioner did not submit anything with regard to the non-maintainability of the instant complaint before this Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. As per Section 34 of the CP Act, 2019 “The District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:” Be it noted here initially by the said Act, the original value was one crore but subsequently the said limit has been reduced to rupees fifty lakh from one core rupees by way of Government notification. Here, in the present case, from the papers produced in connection with this case we find that the value of the property is much more than the pecuniary limit of this Commission. Therefore, the instant case cannot be entertained by this Commission and the same is liable to be dismissed. As the instant case is found to be not maintainable before this Commission, we think it is futile to discuss the other points/allegations raised by the petitioner against the respondents in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED That the instant complaint is dismissed on contest on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. With this, the petition filed by the respondents on 19.04.2023 challenging the maintainability of this case on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction (MA/51/2023) stands allowed also on contest. No order as to cost. Dictated and corrected by me | 
