HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The complainants no. 1 & 2 namely Sandeep Sachin and Aparna Sachin Sharma had booked a residential plot with the OP and the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.29,89,000/-.  The complainant no. 3 Captain Manoj Abhishek and Manorama Sharma booked another residential plot with the OP and in their case, the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.31,44,750/-. The complainants no. 1 & 2 and complainants no. 3 & 4 claim to have paid 90% each of the agreed sale consideration to the OP.  Since possession of the plots has not been delivered to them, they are before this Commission seeking possession of the plots alongwith compensation for the delay in delivering possession or in the alternative, for refund of the amount paid by them alongwith interest on that amount. 

2.      As held by a three Members Bench of this Commission vide its order dated 07.10.2016 in CC No. 97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum in such cases is to be determined on the basis of the aggregate of the sale consideration and the compensation claimed by the complainant.  In this case, the agreed sale consideration being Rs.29,89,000/- in case of complainants no. 1 & 2 and Rs.31,44,750/- in case of complainants no. 3 & 4, even if compensation in the form of interest at a reasonable rate is added to the said amount, the aggregate does not comes to more than Rs. 1 crore.  Therefore, this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3.      Moreover, the complainants no. 1 & 2 have one agreement with the OP whereas complainants no. 3 & 4 have another agreement with the OP.  The bookings made by them are also different.  Therefore, they cannot join together in the same complaint for the purpose of obtaining the reliefs sought in this complaint.  A joint complaint is not envisaged in Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act except a complaint by way of a class action filed by or on behalf of the persons having same interest in the subject matter of the complaint. This complaint does not fulfill the criteria laid down in Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act in terms of the decision of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

4.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainants to file two separate complaints before the concerned State Commission.