1. This complaint has been filed by Satbir Singh Multani and Simran Oberoi against the opposite party. 2. Complainants booked unit no 1204 Block B4 Floor -12 in April 2013 in Unitech south park Sector 70 Gurgaon village Fazilpur, Jharsa , Tehsil Badshahpur District Gurgaon Haryana for a total consideration of Rs.1,02,18,888 and the complainants have paid Rs.44,30,224/- to the opposite party in installments from 17.4.2013 to 4.3.2014. The delivery of flat was to be given within 36 months from the date of builder buyer agreement. The possession has not been given so far. However the complainants do not want to proceed with the possession of the flat due to various reasons. The complainants want refund of the entire money paid by them along with 18 % interest p.a. from date of payment till the date of refund. Aggrieved , the complainants have filed the present complaint. 3. The learned counsel for complainants was heard for admissibility and the record was perused. 4. It was stated by the learned counsel that the complainants had booked apartment with the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.1,02,18,888 and various installments were paid to a total amount of Rs.44,30,224. As the construction did not proceed, Opposite party failed to deliver possession in time. Complainants don’t want to pursue with the possession as their money would be blocked for many years. In these circumstances they are requesting for refund. It was further stated that in the light of the judgement of the larger bench of this commission in the matter of Consumer case no 97of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. decided on 7.10.2016 (NC), the amount of total consideration as agreed between the parties is to be taken into consideration for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum which in the present case is more than rupees one crore and therefore, this commission will have jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants and have examined the record. The following prayer has been made in the complaint. “Direct the opposite parties to pay the actual amount paid Rs.44,30,224/- as shown in Annexure –C/2.
ii Interest on the above amount at the rate of 18% per annum from date of payment till the date of refund .The amount of interest till 31.5.2017 has been calculated which comes to Rs. 29,52,341/-. iii Cost of litigation Rs.1,00,000/-. iv Damages at the rate of Rs.100,000/- per annum from date of booking till realization. v Any other relief as may deem fit and appropriate may also kindly be passed.” 6. It is clear that the main request is for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.44,30,224 with 18% interest p.a. Apart from this the complainants have also requested for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- pa from the date of booking and cost of litigation Rs 1,00,000. The section 21(a)(i) of the consumer protection act ,1986 reads as under:- “21 Jurisdiction of the national commission –Subject to the other provisions of this Act , the National commission shall have jurisdiction – (a)to entertain – (i) complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation , if any claimed, exceed {rupees one crore}” 7. 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.” 8. 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.44,30,224/- 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 in 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. 9. Based on the above consideration, it is clear that in the present case even if total refund of Rs.44,30,224/- 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. 10. 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. | 
