JUDGMENT

(Date: 16-03-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member

1. The Present application dated 18-10-2023 is filed by the Opposite Party seeking adjudication of the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, and for consequent dismissal/return of the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

2. The Opposite Party had contended that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, in as much as the value involved exceeds the limits prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint arises out of a transaction concerning the purchase of a residential flat, the total consideration Rs. 3,40,15,888/-, without taxes and various charges against which the Complainants are stated to have paid Rs. 70,58,623/- to the Opposite Party. The relief claimed in the prayer clause is quantified at Rs. 88,66,791/-. The Opposite Party submits that for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction, what is to be reckoned is the total consideration value of the flat together with the compensation claimed, and not merely the amount actually paid or the amount sought in the prayer.

3. In support of the said proposition, the Opposite Party places reliance on the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., wherein the principles for determining pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stand authoritatively explained, and in Parikshit Parashar Vs. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., First Appeal No. 644 of 2015, wherein the said principles have been reiterated. The position emerging from these decisions is that the aggregate of the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed determines pecuniary jurisdiction; where such aggregate exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, the National Commission is the competent Commission, and where it exceeds Rs. 20.00 lakh but does not exceed Rs. 1.00 crore, the State Commission is competent.

4. Applying the said principle to the present case, the Opposite Party submits that the value of the goods, namely the consideration of the flat at Rs. 3,40,15,888/-, when aggregated with the compensation claimed of Rs. 88,66,791/-, works out to Rs. 4,28,82,679/-, which is admittedly beyond the pecuniary competence of this Commission. On these premises, the Opposite Party prays that the issue be decided as a preliminary issue and the complaint be dismissed or returned for presentation before the appropriate Commission.

5. The Complainants had filed their reply dated 16/02/2024 to the said application and oppose the application and have additionally filed a separate application dated 10/02/2025 along with supporting citations. At the threshold, the Complainants contend that the application is frivolous and has been preferred at a belated stage, when the matter is at the stage of final arguments, with the sole object of delaying the proceedings. It is pointed out that the Opposite Party has been a participant in the proceedings throughout and has been at all material times aware of the nature and valuation of the complaint.

6. On merits, the Complainants submit that the actual sale consideration of the flat is Rs. 3,90,00,000/- and not the figure projected by the Opposite Party. More importantly, the relief sought is not possession of the flat but is purely monetary in nature, namely refund/compensation. The amount actually paid by the Complainants to the Opposite Party is Rs.70,58,623/-, and the total relief quantified in the prayer clause is Rs. 88,66,791/-. According to the Complainants, the inclusion of the entire sale consideration, when no claim for possession is being agitated, is wholly unwarranted; the figure that determines pecuniary jurisdiction is the relief actually claimed, which is well within the limits of this Commission, that is, above Rs. 20,00,000/- and below Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

7. In support, the Complainants rely upon the decision of the Ho