Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District, State, and National Commissions is determined solely by the value of goods or services paid as consideration, excluding any claimed compensation or additional costs.

ORDER

1. The complainant who states that he is living abroad in United States had entered into a service agreement for the construction of a residential house on 14.02.2024 regarding a semi furnished house to be completed within 9 months. According to the complainant the total consideration agreed upon by the parties was Rs.99,77,331/- and payments were made and the complainant ended up by making payment worth Rs.1,25,00,000/- to the opposite parties. In spite of these payments and the extended time, the opposite parties failed to complete even 50% of the project and started demanding more money and on the other hand on physical site inspection the use of substandard quality construction material was also observed. There were other discrepancies and deficiencies that have been alleged for which a legal notice was sent on 05.09.2025 to which a reply was given on 29.09.2025. Learned counsel urged that the complainant has had to incur heavy monthly expenses for the security of the property and even otherwise has been harassed on account of his family circumstances as well, whereas the opposite party has failed to adhere to the promises made by them.

2. The Office has raised an objection that the admitted amount paid as consideration by the complainant is Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Learned counsel during the course of his submissions also pointed out that over and above this a sum of Rs.14,10,842/- had been paid as security charges for looking after the incomplete house. It is therefore urged that in view of the aforesaid facts and that the complainant has to incur heavy expenses in order to complete the premises which would cross the threshold of rupees two crores, this complaint should be maintained. For this she has also urged that a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- has been claimed and therefore the total amount crosses the barrier of two crores. Learned counsel has urged that in view of the decision in the case of Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors, (2000) 7 SCC 668, there is no bar for this Commission to entertain a complaint and award compensation even beyond or below the pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. We are not impressed by this argument, in as much as, it is the ultimate powers of this Commission that have been recognised holding that compensation can be awarded beyond what has been claimed. There is no dispute about this proposition, but the said judgment would not be applicable as of now keeping in view the threshold limit of pecuniary jurisdiction now specifically defined under Section 34, Section 47 and Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The aforesaid provisions were interpreted holding that now the definition of pecuniary jurisdiction rests squarely on the phrase “paid as consideration”. This has been interpreted by this Commission in the decision of Pyaridevi Chabirai Steels Pvt. Ltd, v. National Insurance Company Ltd. , 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 845, as follows:

“M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Howrah, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) have approached this Commission by filing a Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 833 of 2020 against National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal and three other Parties seeking the following reliefs:

“91. That the Complainant seeks financial reliefs on account of financial loss and detriment to the life and livelihood of its stakeholders and for the restoration of the Company. The total sum claimed for the restoration of the Factory Premises being Rs. 28,23,05,135/- and relief from NPA which includes:

a. The sum of Rs. 9,96,50,500/- for the restoration of damaged and tilted buildings.

b. The sum of Rs. 73,03,656/- for the expenditure already incurred in restoration and replacement of Plant and Machinery.

c. The sum of Rs. 9,92,12,841/- for t