IMPORTANT POINT
Pecuniary jurisdiction is linked to the value of the goods or services, and not to the cost/value of the defect/deficiency in the goods or services.—Para 4

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainants booked a residential apartment with the OP in a project namely ‘Gurgaon Greens’ which the OP is developing in Gurgaon. Apartment No.GGN-08-702 in the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainants for a consideration of Rs.1,25,37,036.53/-. The parties then executed a Buyers Agreement on 01.04.2013 incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said allotment. In terms of clause 14(a) of the agreement subject to force majeure circumstances and subject to the allottees complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement, the possession was proposed to be handed over within 36 months from the start of the construction though a grace period of five months was also available to the OP for the limited purpose of applying and obtaining the Completion Certificate/Occupancy Certificate in respect of the unit and/or the project. Therefore, the construction of the apartment ought to have been completed by 01.04.2016 though the Occupancy Certificate could be applied within next five months. The complainants have made payment of Rs.40,36,297/- to the OP but the possession has not been offered to them. The complainants are therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the OP with compensation etc.

2. The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payment received from them. It has however, been stated that the complainants are in default in making payment of the balance sale consideration. They having not paid the fifth installment demanded vide letter dated 31.01.2017 as also the other installments demanded thereafter. This is also the contention of the learned counsel for the OP that since the amount paid by the complainants is less than Rs.1 Crore and even the aggregate of the amount paid by them and interest on that amount does not come to more than Rs.1 Crore. This Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Complaint. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the OP is that in view of the provisions contained in Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act (RERA), this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer Complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the OP also states that this being a project covered by RERA, they had obtained time till 31.12.2018 from RERA which has since been extended upto 01.12.2019. This is also his submission that the OP has already applied for the grant of the requisite Occupancy Certificate on 31.12.2018.

4. As far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, in view of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed as the case may be exceeds Rs.1 Crore. Thus, the pecuniary jurisdiction is linked to the value of the goods or services, and not to the cost/value of the defect/deficiency in the goods or services, as the case may be. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such a case would mean the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the allottee to the builder. Since, admittedly, the said consideration was more than Rs.1 Crore, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As far as the contention that since the amount paid by the complainants alongwith interest on that amount comes to less than Rs.1 Crore and therefore, this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction, the issue came to be considered by this Commission in CC No. 508 of 2017 Pradeep Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs. M/s Supertech Limited, decided on 27.08.2018 and the following view was taken:—

4. The first plea advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party is that this Commission lacks p