IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint is not maintainable if it has no pecuniary jurisdiction.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant Rajnish Bhasin against the opposite parties, M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Anr.

2. Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant bought a flat in Krescent Homes, NOIDA from the opposite parties for a total consideration of Rs.53,43,145/-. The complainant is the second allottee and the first allottee had purchased house in Krescent Homes from the opposite parties. It is stated that the complainant has paid Rs.48,44,099/-. It has been alleged in the complaint that opposite parties informed the complainant that the possession of the flat would be ready by March, 2017. However, the possession has not been handed over to the complainant. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties, the present complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-

“1. Direct the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay/refund a sum of Rs.86,69,548.84/- i.e. the original principle amount paid by the Complainant for their respective units to the tune of Rs.54,45,076/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the day payments made to the opposite parties, which amounts to Rs.32,24,473.84/- as on i.e.31.05.2017, as per the Schedule 1 and 2 annexed to the petition alongwith further interest @18% per annum till realisation;

2. Direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for mental and financial harassment and agony and based on appreciation of prices for another similar flat of which ready possession is available as on date;

3. Direct that the cost of litigation may also be awarded suitably i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-; AND

4. Pass any other judgment, order or direction as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. The learned counsel mentioned that the complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.48,44,099/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., which comes to Rs.86,69,548/-. Apart from this a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- has been demanded by the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel stated that in the light of decision of the larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC), the total consideration of the flat is to be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum. He further stated that total consideration including the basic price of the flat along with other charges comes to Rs.53,43,145/-. If we add the interest of Rs.32,24,473.84/- and compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- plus cost of Rs.2,00,000/- it crosses the figure of rupees one crore and therefore, the complaint is maintainable before this Commission.

4. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the record. This Commission has decided the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (supra). The same judgment in para 15 while giving the gist of answers to various questions, mentions the following:-

“15. Issue No. iii

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.”

5. From the above it is clear that the consideration paid at the time of hiring of the service of the opposite party may also decide the pecuniary jurisdiction in certain cases, particularly in cases of refund where no further amount is to be paid. In the present case only Rs.48,44,099/- has been paid and therefore, looking from this angle this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The value of consideration as per the definition of “