At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Complainants submits that since in view of the recent decision of a larger Bench of this Commission in “Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.” the Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, would vest in the State Commission, as the value of each of the flats, along with compensation claimed will exceed ₹20,00,000/-, instead of going into the merits of the impugned orders, the Petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present Revision Petitions with liberty to file fresh Complaints before the State Commission.  It is also pleaded that since the Complaints were being pursued before a wrong Forum, the Petitioners may be given the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

               Although the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents mainly on the ground that the Complaints were frivolous, yet in view of the fact that the law on the point of Pecuniary Jurisdiction has been settled by a larger Bench of this Commission, recently in Ambrish Kumar’s case (supra), I accede to the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners/Complainants.

               Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.  It is directed that if the Petitioners file fresh Complaints before an appropriate Forum, within 30 days from today, their Applications for condonation of delay in filing the Complaints shall be considered by the concerned Forum, keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 (3) SCC 583”.

          Resultantly, all the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.