1.      This complaint has been filed by the complainant, Narendra Shah & Anr. against the opposite party.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that in the year 2012 official representative of the opposite party after showing the brochure of the forthcoming project of the opposite party prevailed upon the complainant to purchase a flat in the Group Housing Complex of the opposite party. On 23.03.2013, complainants were allotted flat number 2406, 24^th Floor, ORB, GH-01/A, Sector -74, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, having super area of 2520 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.1,28,12240/-. The date of delivery of the flat to the complainants was 31.08.2015.  In the year 2012-13, complainants have paid Rs.33,60,602/- (Rupees Thirty thee lac sixty thousand six hundred and two only) to the opposite party.  In the year 2015, opposite party assured that flat will be handed over to complainant by 2016.  In the year 2015-16, complainant contacted opposite party through personal visit at the office of opposite party and he was assured by opposite party again and again that flat will be handed over soon.  That sensing some foul play, the complainants visited the site of construction where they were shocked to see that the project wherein the flat was allotted to the complainants was on the very initial stage of construction.  On making enquiries from the technical staff on the site, complainants were informed that the construction of flat shall take at least another 1-2 years.

3.      Hence the complaint.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainants on the maintainability and jurisdiction.  The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the total consideration of the flat was Rs.1,28,12240/- and that the complainants have already paid Rs.33,60,602/-. The learned counsel emphasized that a larger Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 -  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC) has given a finding that for pecuniary jurisdiction purposes, the total agreed consideration is to be seen. As the total consideration of the flat is more that Rs, one crore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this present complaint.

5.        I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have examined the record.  The prayer of the complaint states as follows:-

“a)   Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.33,60,602/- (Thirty Three Lac Sixty Thousand Six Hundred and Two only) along with 24% interest from date of deposit of the amount pendent-lite and future interest at the same rate or such higher rate which this Hon’ble Commission may deemed fit in the interest of justice.

b)    Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac only) to the complainants as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused by the opposite party.

c)     That a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) be allowed as litigation cost.

d)    Any other relief’s that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant in the circumstances of the case.”

6.      From the above, it is evident that the main prayer is in respect of refund of the deposited amount of Rs.33,60,602/-.  The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC).  A reading of this judgment shows that this Commission has held that in cases where even the part deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction.  However, this judgment is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested.  Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement.  In the cases of refund, the value of complaint has to be the value of the amount deposited plus compensation claimed. In the present case, amount deposited is Rs.33,60,602 /- and compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- has been demanded.  Thus, the total figure does not cross the limit of Rupees One Crore, which is necessary for this Commission to exercise its jurisdiction. Even the addition of demanded interest shall not make the total value more than Rs. One Crore. In these circumstances, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint case. 

7.   Based on the above discussion, Consumer Complaint No.1195 of 2017, is not maintainable in this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Hence, complaint stands dismissed as not being maintainable before this Commission on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, in the interest of justice, the complainants are given liberty to file the complaint before the concerned State Commission on the same cause of action which will decide the complaint on merit.