JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Pradeep A. Waingankar, the complainant herein has filed instant consumer complaint against the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (described as opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 in the title) and National Housing Bank Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party finance company in respect of housing loan of Rs.4,05,000/- advanced to him vide offer letter dated 16.12.2002 @ 9.75% p.a. against the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of property No.T-2, 3^rd Floor, Royal Blue, Yashwant Nagar, Ponda, Goa. The complaint is highly verbose and confused. The complainant has prayed for following reliefls: -

“The complainant therefore prays that:-

1. A sum of Rs.2,72,40,000/- as stated in paras 48 to 51 above.

2. Refund the sum of Rs.1,764/- alongwith 18% interest from March, 2010 till full and final payment towards amount which was not refunded.

3. Pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the cost of the petitioner.

   For which act of kindness the complainant shall as duty bound ever pray.”

    

    

   2.       On bare reading of the complaint we find that major component of the compensation claimed by the complainant is Rs.1,90,00,000/-. The quantification of the said compensation is detailed in para-48 of the complaint which is reproduced as under: -

   “The complainant states that the complainant had to sell his three developed NA plots admeasuring approximately 670 sq. mtrs. total situated at Borim, Ponda, Goa at a throw away price in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 to meet critical financial loss and needs occurred due to the harassment on the part of the respondents. It was a distress sale on the part of the complainant for which the respondents are solely responsible as sated in aforesaid paras. The rate prevailing at the relevant time was not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. mtr. However, the complainant was forced to sell them @ Rs.4000/- per sq. mtr. approximately. The complainant on account of the sale of the said plots suffered a loss of Rs.6,000/- per sq. mtrs. amounting in all to Rs.40,00,000/-. The complainant states that the complainant had bought the said plots for his children for their future needs. Even otherwise, the said plots would have fetched a much better rate/pprice in another 10 to 15 years time. The complainant quantifies the said loss to Rs.1,90,00,000/- considering the fact that the said plots would have fetched at least Rs.28,000/- per sq. mtr. even if the rate of inflation is calculated conservatively.”

    

    

   3.       On bare reading of the above, it is clear that there is neither any justification nor any rational basis for the complainant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,90,00,000/- on account of the selling of his plots at much lower rate because of pressure created by the opposite party. It appears that the aforesaid unreasonable and unrealistic figure has been given by the complainant only with a view to inflate the pecuniary value of the complaint in order to defeat the hierarchy of the Consumer Fora, which provides that the District Forum would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.20 Lakhs, State Commission would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with the pecuniary value of more than Rs.20 lakhs but upto Rs.1 crore and the National Commission shall have power to entertain the complaints having pecuniary value of Rs.1 crore and above. If the aforesaid figure of Rs.1,90,00,000/- is taken out of the figure of Rs.2,72,40,000/- then obviously the value of this complaint would fall short of Rs.1 crore. Therefore, in our considered view National Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Complaint is accordingly rejected.

   4.       It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the complainant to approach the Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.