PER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER (ORAL)

                In terms of section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of goods or services as the case may be and the compensation if any claimed by the complainant exceeds ₹.1 crore.  As held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016, the value of the services in such case means the sale consideration agreed between the parties. 

2.      This Commission has not awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 12% per annum in such matters while simultaneously directing delivery of possession of the house to the flat buyer.

3.      If the agreed sale consideration and compensation in the form of interest @ 12% per annum computed on the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party calculated @ 12% per annum from the committed date of delivery till the complaint was instituted are added, the aggregate does not come to ₹1 crore, therefore, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.  The opposite party has in fact already raised a preliminary objection that this Commission does not have requisite jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. These complaints therefore, ought to have been instituted before the concerned State Commission. 

4.      The next question which arises for consideration as to what course of action should be adopted in respect of these complaints which have been pending with this Commission for the last about 1½ years.  One course can be to dismiss these complaints with liberty to such complainants to institute fresh complaints before the concerned State Commission.  The aforesaid course of action, in my view, would not be fair and reasonable, considering that the complaints are pending for about 1½ years and at one point of time, this Commission had taken the view that the market value of the flat as on the date of filing of the complaint could be treated as the value of the service in such matters.  In my view, the appropriate course of action in such matters would be to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 7 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Though, the aforesaid provision has not been expressly extended to this Commission by Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, the principle underlying the said provision can in appropriate cases, be adopted by this Commission, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, while simultaneously ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the service provider by adopting such a course of action.  The opposite party in these cases has filed its written version on the merits of the complaints.  It has also led evidence on merits.  No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the complaints are returned for being presented before the concerned State Commission, with a direction to the State Commission to decide them afresh, taking into consideration, the pleadings, affidavits and the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the parties before this Commission provided an opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional evidence and if filed, such additional evidence is also considered along with the evidence, which was filed before this Commission.  The aforesaid course of action besides ensuring a prompt and expeditious disposal of the complaints by a competent Consumer Forum will also ensure that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner. The aforesaid was the view taken by this Commission in C.C. No. 198/2015 Dushyant Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and connected matters decided on 31.01.2017.  The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions that on receiving the complaints from this Commission, will present the same before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within two weeks thereafter.  The complaints are disposed of with following directions:-

(a)     The complaints be returned to the complainant(s) alongwith an endorsement containing the date of presentation and return of the complaint, the name of the complainant presenting the complaint and a brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint;  

(b)     The parties shall appear before the concerned State Commission at 10.30 a.m. on 16.10.2017. 

(c)     The State Commission need not issue a fresh notice requiring the parties to appear before it on the aforesaid date of hearing. 

(d)     The State Commission shall decide the complaints in terms of para 12 of the order passed by this Commission in  Dushyant Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra).

(e)     There shall be no order as to costs in these matters.