Amitava Shankar Guha vs Emaar Mgf Land Ltd.

on 23 April, 2019

4. In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint, where the value of the goods or services
as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rupees One
Crore. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish
Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016, the value of
services in such cases, means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the
builder. The following view was taken by this Commission in CC/198/2015 Dushyant Kumar
Gupta Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & connected matters, decided on 31.1.2017,
and containing almost identical prayers, is relevant, as far as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is
concerned:-

"4. The main question which arises for consideration in these complaints is as to whether this
Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. As
provided in section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act this Commission has jurisdiction to
entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed
exceeds Rs.1 crore. Though most of the complainants have claimed refund @ Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft.
of the area of the flat, no credible evidence has been led by them to prove that the market value of
a flat similar to the flat allotted to them and in the same or a comparable locality was Rs.10,000/-
or more on the date these complaints were instituted. No price list of any developer in respect of
residential flats in the same or a comparable locality with identical or comparable specifications
has been produced by them, in the absence of a credible evidence, it would be difficult to accept
the bald statements of the complainants as regards the market value of a similar flat in the same or
a comparable locality, on the dates these complaints were instituted. Therefore, invocation of the
pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission on the basis of the aforesaid alleged market value of
the similar flats is highly misplaced and cannot be entertained.

6. In a complaint where the complainant makes alternative prayers, one for possession of the
house allotted / plot to him and the other for refund of the amount paid by him to the developer
along with compensation, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint where either the relief of possession or the relief of refund, alongwith the compensation
as calculated in terms of para-5 hereinabove falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this
Commission. Since in such a case, the State Commission will not have the requisite
pecuniary jurisdiction to grant one of the alternative reliefs claimed in the complaint, the
complainant cannot be asked to approach the said Commission.
5. If considered in terms of the decision in Dushyant Kumar Gupta (supra), this Commission
does possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints since the agreed sale
consideration and the compensation in the form of interest comes to more than Rupees one crore
in all these matters.

6. It was contended by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party that compensation
for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction would mean only the contractual compensation agreed
between the parties. However, I find no merit in the contention. A bare perusal of Section
21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act would show that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction,
compensation, if any, claimed by the complainant is to be added to the value of the goods or
services, as the case may be. Of course, a highly exaggerated, fanciful or inflated claim cannot
be considered to be a genuine claim and therefore, cannot be determinative of the
pecuniary jurisdiction. However, considering that not only this Commission, but the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has awarded compensation in the form of interest at the rate upto 18% per annum,
compensation in the form of interest calculated @ 18% per annum would not be taken as a highly
inflated or exaggerated claim so as to warrant outright rejection of the complaint, even though the
Court / Forum may award a lesser compensation. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention
that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain these complaints.