IA/9171/2016 Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. FIRST APPEAL 1. This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 31.5.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”), in Complaint Case No.CC/97/2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the short ground that it does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, as the total compensation claimed by the Complainant works out to ₹6,50,875/-, and as such being less than ₹20,00,000/-, only the District Forum will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. We are unable to agree with the State Commission. 2. Section 17(1)(a) of the Act determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. It reads as follows : 17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction— (a) to entertain— (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and (ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 3. On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the Complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission. In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer. 4. That being the legal position, in the present case, the value of the flat in question by itself being ₹1,85,01,285/-, and even ignoring the amount of compensation, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum, as held by the State Commission, will have the jurisdiction and this Commission alone will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint filed by the Appellant. 4. Consequently, we permit the Appellant to withdraw this Appeal as well as the Complaint, with liberty to her to file a fresh Complaint before an appropriate Forum. As and when a fresh Complaint is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation on the merits of the claim in the impugned order. 5. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. | 
