This complaint has been filed by the complainant Rashmi Varma against the opposite party, M/s. Unitech Ltd.

2.      Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a flat in Nirvana Country 2, Sector-70, Gurgaon from the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.1,52,62,160/- and the complainant had paid total sum of Rs.32,22,786/-.  The builder-buyer agreement was executed on 14.4.2012.  It has been alleged that the complaint is not hopeful for getting possession of the flat as there is no construction.  Therefore, complainant is desirous of seeking refund of the paid amount.  Accordingly, the complaint has been filed with the following prayer:-

“1.  Direct the Opposite Party to pay the following amounts:-

I)        Actual amount paid Rs.32,23,786/- as shown in annexure –C/2.

II)     Interest on the above amount at the rate of 18% per annum from date of payment till date of refund/realization.The amount of interest till 31.10.2016 has been calculated which comes to Rs.24,49,006/-

III)  Cost of litigation Rs.1,00,000/-

IV)  Damages at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from date of booking till realization.”

3.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage and perused the record.  The learned counsel stated that the total consideration of the flat in question is Rs.1,52,62,160/-.  However, complainant has paid only Rs.32,23,786/-.  As per the judgment of the larger Bench of this Commission in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC),  the total consideration of the flat is to be taken into account for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum.  As the total consideration is more than rupees one crores, this Commission will have the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

4.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the record. This Commission has decided the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (supra).  The same judgment in para 15 while giving the gist of answers to various questions, mentions the following:-

“15. Issue No. iii

        The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.”

5.      From the above it is clear that the consideration paid at the time of hiring of the service of the opposite party may also decide the pecuniary jurisdiction in certain cases, particularly in cases of refund where no further amount is to be paid. In the present case only Rs.32,23,786/- has been paid and therefore, looking from this angle this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.  The value of consideration as per the definition of “consumer” given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  includes “partly paid and partly promised”.  Thus, in case of refund of the amounts paid to the opposite party/builder, there would only be the element of “partly paid” and the element of “promised to be paid” would be missing.  Thus, the consideration in a case of refund would only mean the amount paid and therefore, consideration paid in the above quoted observation in the decision of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. (supra) could be only the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party and this shall decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum.  Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement.  Thus, the value of service in a complaint case seeking refund of the paid amount would be limited to the amount paid whose refund has been sought.

6.      Based on the above consideration, it is clear that in the present case even if total refund of Rs.32,23,786/- is taken into consideration along with interest @18% p.a. and compensation demanded, the total figure does not cross the limit of Rupees One Crore.  Hence, this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

7.      On the basis of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file the consumer complaint before the concerned State Commission, which shall decide the complaint on merits.  The time for pendency of the complaint before this Commission shall not be counted for the purposes of limitation.