IMPORTANT POINT
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under CP Act, 2019 is determined solely by the value of consideration paid for goods or services & not by value of goods or services themselves or any compensation.

ORDER

The only issue involved in this petition pertains to the validity of the District Forum’s decision to dismiss the Complaint, which is based on an Application submitted by the Respondents, asserting that the District Forum lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint due to its valuation exceeding 20 Lakh.

2. Admittedly, in this Revision Petition, the Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Respondents to purchase the property at H.No. B-1348, 1st Floor, rear portion, Greenfields Colony, Faridabad, Haryana 121010, for a total consideration of Rs.65,00,000/-. However, the Petitioner subsequently filed a Complaint before the learned District Forum, vide CC No. 592/2019, seeking a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Respondents. This claim was based on alleged deficiencies in the services related to the aforementioned property, which the Petitioner had purchased from the Respondents, inclusive of compensation for mental harassment.

3. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 24.03.2022 decided the Respondents Application as regards maintainability of the Complaint based on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the Respondents, and consequently dismissing the Complaint without delving into the merits of the case. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Petitioner filed Appeal No. 133 of 2022 before the learned State Commission and the learned State Commission, vide order dated 05.08.2022, upheld the decision of the District Forum. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed this Revision Petition.

4. Heard the Petitioner’s father (AR) in person and the counsel for the Respondents. Perused the entire material on record including the Orders of both the fora.

5. The AR of the Petitioner contended that, in terms of Section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is mandated to determine the maintainability and jurisdiction of a complaint based solely on the allegations and evidence presented. Referring to Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it was argued that if a court has already adjudicated upon the monetary value of a dispute, it cannot dismiss the suit but must refer it to the appropriate court. He cited Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajiv Hitendra Phatak & Others vs. Achyut Kashi Karkelkar and Neena Arneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates, it was emphasized that the Act, 2019, should not retrospectively apply to cases under the repealed CPA, 1986. Additionally, in Ambrish Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. pertained to hiring of construction services, which is distinct from the present case involving the sale of property.

6. He also argued that the State Commission failed to specify whether the dismissal of the first appeal was under the CPA, 1986 or the CP Act, 2019. It was contended that since the complaint was amended to invoke Section 34 of the CP Act, 2019, and the jurisdiction of the District Forum under this act was one crore, the dismissal of the first appeal under the CP Act, 2019, was erroneous.

7. The Counsel for the Respondent countered the Petitioner’s argument by asserting that under Section 11 of the CP Act, 1986, the jurisdiction of the District Forum is determined based on the aggregate value of goods and services involved in the dispute, along with any compensation claimed. Referring to the judgment in Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr. and the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., it was emphasized that the total sale amount of Rs.65,00,000/- and the claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- must be considered together to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. Accordingly, the Counsel argued that since the total amount exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Forum, the rejection of the complaint by the District Forum and the affirmation of this decision by the State Commission were correct. They further asserted that the State Commission’s decision was in