STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/851

1. Mr. Sachin Sabnis, Aged 52 years; Occupation: Service

2. Mrs. Sneha Sachin Sabnis, Aged 49 years; Occupation: Homemaker Both r/at 803, Muabarak Bin Muhair Al Khyali, Al Falah Street, Sharq No. 2/4, Plot No. 54, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. …… Complainants Versus

1. Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd.

(A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act)

412, 17G Wardhaman Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

Also having offices at:

216, Shah and Nahar Industrial Estate, Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.

AND Lodha Excelus, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011. …… Opposite Party BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainants : Advocate Varad Deore For the Opposite Party : Advocate Akshay Pre, Advocate Tarunima Singh, Advocate Nitin Waghmare

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 th