The complainants are present through their Ld.Advs. The case is taken up for hearing admission. Perused the petition of complaint and other materials on record. Also perused the decisions cited by the Ld.Advocate of the complainants . Heard the Ld.Advocate.

               This is a case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 filed by the complainant regarding the deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice by the O.P./Promoters-Developers from whom the complainant have purchased one flat at a consideration of Rs.34 lacs.

           The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainants have claimed less than Rs.20 Lacs as compensation and for other charges in the present case.  So this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

            Sec 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 goes as follows:-

             Jurisdiction of the District Forum- subject to the other provisions of this Act and District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20 lacs.

                Thus the true interpretation of sub Sec 1 of Sec. 11 will be the District Forum should entertain the complaint where the value of goods and services plus the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs.20 lacs. If the value of the goods and services exceeds Rs.20 lacs then District Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a petition of complaint. It has been clearly decided by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017(4) CPR page 192 (Atul Mohan Joshi vs. Shubh Enterprise and others), value of services in such case would mean sale consideration agreed to be paid by flat buyer to Developer. In our opinion this is also applicable to the flat buyers who have already paid consideration amount. So in the instant case value of the services is Rs.34 lacs. It has also been decided by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017(4) CPR page 216 (Aristo Developer Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Chandrakanth Nagji Patel), for the purpopse of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, price of goods and services agreed to be paid by consumer and compensation as claimed in complaint are relevant factors. We think that this decision is also applicable in respect of the consideration paid by the buyer for the flat.

              In the instant case the value of the services is Rs.34 lacs and the compensation claimed by the complainant is about Rs.20 lacs. So the value of the services and the compensation claimed by the complainant have exceeded Rs.20 lacs.

            Therefore as per provision of sub-section 1 of the Sec 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 this District Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition of complaint. As such the present petition of complaint can  not be admitted and is liable to be dismissed.

          Hence it is

                                             O R D E R E D :-

that the Consumer Case no.10/2018 be and the same is dismissed with a liberty to sue afresh before the proper authority/Court having pecuniary jurisdiction on the self same cause of action within the period of limitation. The case is thus disposed of.

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost forthwith.

Let the original documents if any and the extra sets be returned to the complainant on proper receipt.