The Consumer Complaint was dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as the total claim exceeded the prescribed limit of the District Commission.

1. The instant appeal has been directed by the appellant under S.15 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the final order / judgment dated 25/10/2019 passed by learned District Commission in CC / 222/2015.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the property, mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complaint, originally was of Susanta Kumar Ghosh, who died intestate, living behind Supriya Ghosh (wife) and his four sons, namely, the complainant and OP No. 1 and Sumit Ghosh. They became owner of one - fifth of the undivided property. Subsequently, Sumit Kumar Ghosh executed a registered deed of conveyance being No. 02249 of 2012 in favour of the complainants and the OP No. 1 so far their two - fifths share is concerned. The complainants and the OP No. 1 executed and registered another deed of conveyance in favour of Sumit Kumar Ghosh donating their share in the rest of the property left by Susanta Kumar Ghosh. Therefore, the complainants and the OP No. 1 got their names mutated both in the local self - Government as well as in the office of BL & LRO, Singur, and used to pay rent and taxes regularly. OP No. 1 proposed to raise a multi - storied building after demolishing the existing old building with a view to developing give an adequate accommodation to each co - owner and also to earn some money by selling flats. OP No. 1 is practically a developer and has got partnership firm in the name and style as M/s. Transasia Infrastructure.

3. The complainants and their mother were facing tremendous problem in the matter of proper and sufficient accommodation and to solve the impasse they gave a consent. OP No. 1 prepared two deeds, one is for an agreement for development and another is for general power of attorney, complainants were arrayed as first party while OP No. 1was figured as second party in the deed of agreement. It was agreed that OP No. 1 shall develop the property after demolishing of the old building, except the portion occupied by Sumit Ghosh and shall construct a new multi - storied building. But OP No. 1 failed to complete the 20% of FAR of the building which tantamount to breach of trust, condition contract and a complete deviation from agreement as well as power of attorney dated 21/02/2014. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 26/11/2015 to the OPs. But the OP No. 1 failed to give any reply. OP No. 3 has been informed about the developments but took no steps against the OP No. 1 and the complainants also requested OP No. 3 not to mutate the purchasers of the building because if OP No. 1 is able to transfer each and every flat to different persons without completing the work then the complainants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, complainants have filed the petition of complaint praying for direction upon OPs to complete the works / flats No. 2A and 3A of Suhasini Ghosh, apart from earmark for the complainants as per agreement within a stipulated period along with compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000 each for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost.

4. OPs No. 1 & 2 filed written version where they denied all material allegations inter alia stated that it was agreed between the parties that OP No. 1 shall allow to 20% of covered area of the multi - storied building to the complainants in pursuance of Clause 5 by Developer's Agreement. The complainants executed a power of attorney in favour of the OP No. 1 but in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the developer's agreement executed and by between the parties. The OP No. 1 has the liberty to negotiate for the sa