Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2638
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 127/2022
Date of Institution: 03.08.2022
Date of Hearing: 25.09.2025
Date of Decision: 08.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF
BPTP LTD.,
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
OT-14, 3RD FLOOR, NEXT DOOR,
PARKLANDS, SECTOR-76
FARIDABAD,
HARYANA–121004.
(Through: Mr. Mohit Yadav and Mr. Rakshit Jain, Advocates)
…Appellant
VERSUS
1. MR. AJAY AHUJA & ANR.,
R/O. A–27, BALAJI APARTMENT,
SECTOR–3, PLOT NO. 7,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI–110075.
2. DEEPA ARORA,
W/O MR. H. B. ARORA,
R/O H. NO. 378, SECTOR–28,
FARIDABAD (HARYANA).
(Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar and Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advocates)
…Respondents
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit Yadav, Rakshit Jain
For the Respondents: Prasoon Kumar, Aditya Chaudhary
Pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is determined by the total value of the goods or services plus compensation, requiring the inclusion of all agreed contractual charges to ensure the aggregate amount does not exceed the statutory limit of twenty lakhs.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11(1) - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Determination - Total value of goods or services and compensation claimed must not exceed twenty lakhs - Inclusion of all contractual charges to arrive at total consideration - Where total sale consideration including EDC/IDC, PLC, Club Membership and other charges constitutes an amount less than twenty lakhs, the District Commission has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Facts of the case:
The Appellant (Builder) challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, asserting that the value of the property in the complaint exceeded the statutory limit of twenty lakhs, thereby barring the District Commission from adjudicating the matter. The Respondents argued that the basic sale price and agreed charges remained within the jurisdictional limits.
Findings of Court:
Upon calculating the total sale consideration based on the payment plan stipulated in the Floor Buyer’s Agreement, which included the Basic Sale Price, External Development Charges, Preferential Location Charges, and Club Membership charges, the court found the total sum to be Rs. 19,84,767/-, which is below the twenty-lakh threshold.
Issues: Whether the District Commission possessed the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: To determine pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the goods or services and the claimed compensation must be calculated in totality. As the aggregate amount due under the contract did not exceed twenty lakhs, the District Commission acted within its legal authority.
Result: Appeal dismissed; impugned order upheld.
CORAM:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Mohit Yadav and Mr. Rakshit Jain, Counsel for the Appellant,
Email: info@cpslegal.in.
Mr. Arun Prakash, AR of the Appellant.
None for the Respondents.
PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“On the previous date of hearing AR of the OP sought time to place on record the letter vide which the offer of possession was sent to the Complainant by OP in term of the order dated 10.08.2015.
MD of OP is not also present today despite being directed to do so.
It is to be noted that AR of the OP sought time on the date of hearing of 09.12.2015 for compliance of the order dated 10.08.2015. Thereafter it was submitted by parties that matter was likely to the settled. It is also to be noted that vide order dated 11.10.2017 OP was directed to satisfy the Complainant regarding the super area with the layout plan and approved FAR, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant states that the same has not been done till date. Ld. Counsel for complainant further states that complainant had agreed to pay enhance amount, if any, for the super area.
It is to be noted that 7 years have been passed since the order dated 10.08.2015 Ld. Counsel for the OP had submitted on the date of hearing of 07.02.2019 that final letter of possession shall be issued to the Complainant within 15 days however, till date no such letter has been issued.
Ld. Counsel for Complainant stated that till date there is no compliance of order dated 10.08.2015. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for OP submits that offer of possession was given by OP vide dated 25.05.2017. Counsel for complainant also submitted that letter of May 17 was issued in April 17 by OP.
No competent person present on behalf of OP to explain the above facts. On the previous date MD of OP was directed to present today, however he is not present. Bailable warrant be issued against the MD of JD in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- through SHO concerned.
Argument heard on the application for dismissal of the complaint, the averments made are that documents and pleadings show that the value of the property in question is above 20 Lakhs as such this Hon'ble Forum dies not have pecuniary Jurisdiction.
Reply has been filed to the application. Complainant opposes the application, it is stated that as per the Floor Buyer agreement executed between the Complainant and OP dated 04.10.10 clause 1.2 the basic price of the flat in question was Rs. 16,08,400/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Eight Thousand Four Hundred).”
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 26.07.2022, whereby it held as under:
“Heard, the prayer made in the complaint is section 11 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, which relates to jurisdiction of this Forum. This Forum has jurisdiction The relevant extracts of Section 11(1) is as under:-
Section 11(1): Jurisdiction of the District Forum-Subject to the other provisions this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs).
The allegation made in the complaint are that part payments were made to OP and OP was demanding balance payment of Rs. 9,15,658.64/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Eight Sixty Four Paise) but when complainant visited the site in 2013 he found the project was at the stage of completion. The refund sought by complainant is as under:
(1) Direct the respondent to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the flat bearing no. E-32-10-SF in the block/building called Park Elite Floor, Section -85, Faridabad (HR).
(2) Direct the respondent to accept the balance of payment as per the agreement entered into between the parties.
It is to be noted that it has been held in Consumer Case No.
