The value of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act should be based on the specific defect or deficiency complained of by the consumer, aligning with the Act's purpose to protect consumers and provide inexpensive and speedy remedies.

JUDGMENT :

1. The revisionist is aggrieved by the Order No. 20 dated 7th February, 2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in complaint case No. 66 of 2014 (Wood Birch Hazel Residence Association Vs. Managing Director, Bengal United Credit Belani Housing Company Ltd.).

2. A complaint was filed by the Revisionist / Petitioner seeking reimbursement of Rs.14 Lacs towards failure of the OP to install fire fighting equipment in the Housing Complex concerned along with a sum of Rs.10 lacs as compensation as also a further sum of Rs.50,000 as litigation costs. Thus the total claim of the petitioners was Rs.24,50,000/-.

3. By the impugned order the complaint case was rejected as not being maintainable before the State Commission since the value of each of the flat units purchased by the members of the Revisionist in the residential complex of the OP exceeds Rs.1 Crore. It was held that even if a small defect in the entire residential complex is complained of and the complainant seeks compensation, the value of the entire flat and each member of the petitioner must be the basis of valuation in terms of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. The State Commission relied upon the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Quality Foils India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. and Ors., as also the case of Ambrish Kumar Sukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC).

5. There are some other facts that need to be set out, although not directly relevant to the revision petition, to show the impropriety of the conduct of proceedings before the Commission.

6. After the complaint was filed the Opposite Party filed counter- affidavit on 19th January, 2015. Evidence in chief was filed on behalf of the complainant on the 24th April, 2015. The Opposite Party issued a questionnaire to the evidence at affidavit on the 25th August, 2015. The Opposite Party itself filed its evidence by affidavit in 18th August, 2016. The petitioner filed questionnaire to such evidence on the 21st April, 2017. Notes of argument were filed on the 21st November 2017.

7. The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9th January, 2018 when the Commission for the first time observed that the complaint was not properly valued and since the value of each of the apartments as a whole in the Housing Complex, if taken, the valuation of the complaint would exceed Rs.1 Crore. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi alone could hear the matter as per the State Commission.

8. It is the pertinent to note that the complainants were only aggrieved by non-installation of fire fighting facilities within the housing complex, and sought no other relief. The question for consideration before this Court is how the pecuniary jurisdiction of the fora under the 1986 Act is to be reckoned.

9. Counsel for the Opposite Party took a preliminary objection on the assumption that this Court was inclined to either strike down as ultra vires the definition of goods and services in Section 11 and Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to ascertain pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission. In this regard he relied upon the case of Hiral P. Harsona and Ors. Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsona and Ors. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 165, Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Ors. reported in (2016) 7 SCC 703, Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2016) 3 SCC 183, Arun Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in [2006] Supp(6) SCR 290, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. K. Jayaraman and Ors. Reported in (1974) 2 SCC 738.

10. This Court does not intend to address any vires of any provision of the 1986 Act nor does it intend to read down any provision, thereof hence the aforesaid cases cited by the OP are not relevant to the insta