This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP did not take any step either to handover the possession in the questioned flat or to refund the amount as paid by him towards the consideration amount of the flat in part till filing of this complaint.

            At the time of admission hearing it is noticed by us that the total consideration of the flat which the being agreed to purchase the same paid some amount to the OP from time to time on different dates, though the parties did not enter into an agreement for sale. The money receipts show that admittedly with a view to purchase the questioned flat the Complainant paid some amount. It is disclosed by the Complainant that the entire cost of the said flat is for Rs.16,80,000/-. In the prayer portion the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP neither to hand over the vacant khas possession of the complete flats at the first floor being nos-E and F at the project namely Kanchanjangha or refund the amount of total consideration of Rs.16,80,000/- along with banking interest to him. The Complainant has also prayed for direction upon the OP to pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- for intentional and deliberate damage, mental agony caused for such delay and harassment, Rs.15,00,000/- for damage and harassment and cost of litigation for Rs.50,000/-.

            During argument the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has stated that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- towards part consideration to the OP out of total consideration of the flat. But within the four corners of the petition of complaint the aforementioned amount of Rs.8,70,000/- has not been mentioned by the Complainant, rather claimed refund for Rs.16,80,000/- along with bank interest, which denotes that the Complainant paid Rs.16,80,000/- to the OP and now he is claiming for refund of the said amount.

            However, if we accept the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- and now he is praying for refund of the same, then with the said amount as sought for refund the amount as prayed for compensation will be added. In that case the total amount will certainly exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.

            In the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is enumerated that the ‘District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees Twenty Lakhs.”

Having regard to the abovementioned Section we are to say that the suit value of the instant complaint is for Rs.8,70,00/-+ Rs.15,00,000/-+Rs.9,00,000/- is for Rs.32,70,000/-, which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.

Having no pecuniary jurisdiction of this complaint we have no authority to entertain the same hence complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. But the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum/Court/Commission, if not barred otherwise, in view of the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995 AIR 1428).

Hence, the compliant being no-CC-34/2019 is dismissed without any cost being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum without being admitted.

Let plain copy of this judgment/final order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR,2005.

                                                                                         Dictated & Corrected by

                                                                               Hon’ble Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Das

                                                                                                 President