Pecuniary jurisdiction in consumer disputes is determined by the total value of consideration paid for the product/service, not the compensation claimed; furthermore, complaints filed beyond the two-year limitation period without justification are barred.

*******

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party under Section 47(1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in IA No.142/2025 in CC 85/2025 before the District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad in dismissing the petition filed by them to reject the complaint as the District Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present matter and that the same is barred by limitation as stipulated u/s 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint as the complainants and the opposite party.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The complainants filed a complaint against the opposite party builder seeking refund of excess amount paid for the flat. As per the sale deed the area of the flat was mentioned as 1386 sq. ft. as against 1818 sq. ft. which was the area based upon which the opposite party charged the complainants a consideration of Rs.72,78,386/-. This came to their knowledge only on 31.03.2023 when they approached Punjab National Bank, when they transferred their home loan from State Bank of India. It is their grievance that they were misled at the time of booking their flat. According to them, the opposite parties sales team promoted a 3 BHK flat with a saleable area of 1818 sq. ft., but there is a major discrepancy in the flat size.

4. The opposite party filed IA 142/2025 alleging that the Consumer Complaint is based on fake and baseless allegations. It is submitted that the District Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the total value of the flat exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. Additionally, the complaint itself is barred by limitation, since the cause of action took place between 2017-2018 and the complaint was filed in 2025; exceeding the two year limitation.

5. In reply to the petition, the complainants contend that the District Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the claim is only for the deficiency in service and not on the total value of goods.

6. The District Commission in its order dated 04.09.2025 concluded that since the complainants have claimed compensation and damages of Rs.47,00,000/- only, it is within the jurisdiction as per Sec.34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.

7. In so far, as the aspect of limitation is concerned, the District Commission observed that as the complainants have pleaded that the cause of action arose only when they discovered the mis-representation of the area - the issue of limitation requires factual determination and cannot be a ground for rejection at the preliminary stage.

8. Thus, the application filed by the opposite party was dismissed, the present revision petition was filed on the following grounds:-

 That the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

 That the District Commission committed a grave error by completely overlooking and not deciding as to whether the complaint filed by respondents was barred by law in as much as they had emphatically averred in their complaint that the respondents have themselves admitted that they paid Rs.72,78,386/- for the purchase of the flat. The complaint filed after lapse of two years by the Resp