JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)      

          The complainants booked a residential flat with the OP for a total agreed consideration of Rs.46,71,735/- and he claims to have paid Rs.45,85,584/-.  The aforesaid payment is alleged to have been made on several dates between February 2013 to September 2015.  The possession according to the complainants, was to be delivered by April 2015.  The possession having not been delivered, he is before this Commission seeking refund of the principal amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum amounting to Rs.61,56,335/- and additional compensation of Rs.25 lacs for fraud, harassment, distress etc.  He is also seeking loss of rent @ Rs.30,000/- per month to be increased @ 15% every year. 

2.      In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission does possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, where the value of the goods and services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 1 crore.  As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the value of the services in such cases means the total sale consideration agreed to be paid by the buyer to the builder.  Therefore, the value of the services hired or availed by the complainant comes to Rs.46,71,735/-. 

3.      In such cases, neither this Commission nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 18% per annum.  Therefore, a claim for a higher interest would be an exaggerated and inflated claim without any legal basis and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.  If compensation in the form of interest @ 18% per annum is awarded, it will cover the losses of all kind, including the financial loss and distress and mental agony caused to the flat buyer, since the financial loss would not be more than 10-11% per annum, considering the rates of interest prevailing during the relevant period. 

4.      Since the compensation in the form of interest @ 24% per annum according to the complainants, comes to Rs.61,56,335/-, the compensation if calculated @ 18% per annum would be 75% of that amount meaning thereby that it would be less than Rs.46,50,000/-.  If the aforesaid amount is added to the aggregate sale consideration of Rs.46,71,735/-, the aggregate comes to less than Rs.1 Crore.  The complaint therefore, ought to have been instituted before the State Commission.  The complainant cannot be allowed to by-pass the State Commission and circumvent the scheme of Consumer Protection Act by filing a highly inflated and exaggerated claim.  The filing of the complaint before this Commission is nothing but an attempt to by-pass the State Commission.  The complaint is therefore, dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the concerned State Commission after making suitable amendments therein.