This Consumer Complaint was filed by seven complainants having similar grievance against the OP in June 2010 with the following prayer: i. Direct the Opposite Party to refund the amounts paid by the complainants to the Opposite Party and which been specifically described in para 6 of the present complaint from the date of deposit of various amounts till the filing of the complaint alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of payment by the Opposite Party. Total amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party till date stands at Rs.59,25,853/-. ii. Award compensation to the complainants of an aggregate sum of Rs.30 lakhs towards mental agony, harassment and hardship suffered on account of misrepresentation, negligence and delay by the Opposite Party. iii. Award legal costs to the complainants of an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- against the Opposite Party. iv. Pass such any other further order/s as this Honle Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the complaint. 2. The Commission having doubts about the pecuniary jurisdiction directed the complainant on 13.07.2010 to file additional affidavit giving details of the compensation claimed with reference to the claim of each of the complainants besides some other information. Additional affidavit was filed and on 28.10.2010 after perusing the additional affidavit filed by complainant no.1, the Commission admitted the complaint and directed issue of notice to the OP. The OP on the receipt of the notice filed written statement contesting the claim. The complainant also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the OP. The parties, thereafter, filed their evidence by way of affidavit. While the matter rested, thus, complainant no.7 Sandeep Mukhopadhyay settled his dispute with the OP. Consequent upon his settlement, his name was deleted from the array of complainants and amended complaint deleting his name and also amending the prayer clause was filed. As a result the claim filed by the complainants got reduced to Rs.59,25,863/-, plus 30 lakhs, plus Rs. 1,05,000/-, which is less than Rupees One Crore. 3. Learned counsel for the OP has thus raised a plea that this matter is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission and as such complaint be returned. 4. During the course of arguments on maintainability on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, parties agreed to an arrangement and they requested that the matter be transferred to the State Commission with the direction to decide the same after hearing the parties from the existing stage. 5. In view of the aforesaid arrangement arrived at between the parties which will not cause prejudice to either of the parties, instead of returning the complaint for de-novo adjudication which would entail unnecessary delay, we transfer this matter to the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula for deciding the complaint in accordance with law from this stage onward after giving due hearing to the parties. 6. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula on 08.07.2013. Registry is directed to transfer the entire record to the State Commission at the earliest.