The jurisdictional and compensatory frameworks under the Consumer Protection Act aid consumers in securing redressal for deficiencies in service.

1. Present Consumer Complaint has been filed under S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 by Mr. Amit Khanna (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") against M/s. Pearl Infrastructure Projects Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Opposite Party") seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Direct the opposite party to refund as sum of Rs.14,37,500 which was paid by the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of receipt.
(b) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,00,000 as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and pain suffered by him.
(c) Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.51,000 as litigation costs to the complainant.
(d) Such other and further order as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be also passed in favor of the Complainant and against the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that a plot bearing No. B - 1101 in Sector 104, Pearls City, Mohali, Punjab was booked by the complainant on 10.8.2011 paid a sum of Rs.8,62,500 to the opposite party vide cheque No. 750148. Thereafter, complainant paid Rs.5,75,000 vide cheque No. 750162 dated 26.5.2012 to the opposite party. Till date neither allotment letter with respect to the plot in question has been issued by the opposite party nor has possession been handed over to the complainant. The opposite party further failed to execute the plot buyer agreement with the complainant despite the passage of time of 8 years.

3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant approached this commission.

4. During the course of the proceedings, notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 1.5.2017, the AGM Legal of the Opposite Party appeared on 14.9.2017 and the copy of complaint was supplied to him. Subsequent to the acceptance of the copy of the complaint, the Opposite Party did not appear and also failed to file his written statement within the stipulated period. Consequently, the opposite party was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 5.3.2018.

5. The Complainant filed their Evidence by way of affidavit along with the written arguments and the case was finally heard on 22.1.2021.

6. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant as well as the Counsel for the Opposite Party and perused through the material on record. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate preliminary issues of law as to the maintainability of the consumer complaint.
* WHETHER THIS COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT COMPLAINT?

7. The first question for consideration is whether this commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. We deem it appropriate to refer to S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 which provides as under:
"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction -
(a) to entertain -
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed (exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore); and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with