MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDENT (OFFICIATING)

This order shall dispose of First Appeal No.980 of 2022 filed by the Opposite Party, i.e., Suncity Projects Private Limited (hereinafter referred as “the Appellant”) and First Appeal No.1024 of 2022 filed by Lt. Col. Brijesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred as (“the Complainant”).  Both these Appeals have arisen out of the order dated 28.10.2022 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.216 of 2021 whereby the Complaint had been allowed and the Appellant was directed to refund the deposited amount of ₹4,06,250/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. and a sum of ₹3 Lakhs towards mental agony and harassment along with litigation costs of ₹50,000/-.  The Complainant has filed the Appeal seeking enhancement of rate of interest while the Appellant has filed the Appeal challenging the impugned order on several grounds.

2.      A Review Application had also been filed by the Complainant before the State Commission for review of the order dated 28.01.2022.  However, the Review Application was dismissed.

3.      The brief facts of the case as made out by the Complainant were that he had booked a 250 sq. yards residential plot in an upcoming housing project located at Kukas, Jaipur being developed by the Appellant.  The residential plot was booked                    @ ₹6500/- per sq. yd. and he paid a sum of ₹4,06,250/- on 20.02.2013 against receipt no.0694 dated 26.02.2013 towards provisional allotment of the plot.  It is alleged by the Complainant that he was assured by the Appellant that the physical possession of the said plot would be handed over to him within two years.  However, the plot had never been handed over to him despite various communications.  Vide e-mail dated 02.09.2021, he sought refund of the paid amount along with interest.  He had also raised several contentions regarding the expenses incurred by him due to overstay in the government accommodation.  He sent a legal notice dated 09.10.2021 seeking refund of his deposited amount along with interest.  Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Appellant, the Complainant filed the Complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and sought following reliefs:

A. Declare the terms of Provisional Allotment Agreement, as unfair to the Complainant and null and void.

B. Direct the Opposite Party to refund the Principal Amount of 4,06,250/- to the Complainant along with interest of 24% from 20.02.2013.

C. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant, 70,648/-, incurred by them (on government accommodation), as a direct result of delayed/ no timely possession.

D. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant their rental costs of 5,12,000/- (being 32,000/- per month; from 01.08.2020 till 01.12.2021 i.e., 16 months), incurred by them, as a direct result of delayed/ no timely possession.

E. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate to the Complainant an amount of ₹1,00,00,000/- on account of Mental Harassment, torture and agony suffered by him and his family; on the failure of the Opposite Party to hand over possession of residential plot and further handcuff the Complainant to purchase plot elsewhere; leaving the wife of the Complainant to die without fulfilment of her final wish to have a permanent Home.

F. Award the cost of the present Complaint to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party.

G. Any other and further appropriate orders and directions as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4.      The claim was contested by the Appellant.  They raised several issues including that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.  It was also contended that the Complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 since the consideration paid by him was only ₹4,06,250/- and pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission deals with the matter where valuation of Complaint exceeds ₹50 Lakhs but does not exceed ₹2 Crores.  Another issue raised by the Appellant was that the Complaint was barred by limitation and sought dismissal of the Complaint.

5.      Parties led their evidences before the State Commission and after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties, the State Commission allowed the Complaint.  This order is impugned by both the parties before me.

6.      I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant records.

7.      The Appellant has raised the main contention besides other contentions that the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.  It is argued that after passing of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the jurisdiction of the State Commission is to be determined in terms of Section 47 of the said Act and under the said provision, it is only the consideration amount paid which determines the jurisdiction and the value of the goods or services are not to be taken into consideration while deciding the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Reliance is placed on the Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, GSR 912(E) dated 30.12.2021 and the findings of this Commission in “Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2020) SCC Online NCDRC 845”.  It is also argued that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as no plot was allotted to him and he only booked a plot.  It is also argued that the State Commission has erred in granting the interest @ 12% p.a.  It is submitted that the agreed rate of interest was 10% p.a. on the refundable amount and this fact is not disputed by the Complainant.  The document which he has relied upon clearly shows that the rate of interest agreed between the parties was 10% p.a.  His communications seeking refund of the amount also show that the agreed rate of interest was 10% p.a. and that is why in his communications he had sought refund along with interest              @ 10% p.a.

8.      It is argued on behalf of the Complainant that the State Commission has rightly held that it possess the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.  The findings of the State Commission on the issue of Complainant being a consumer also find support by the case laws relied upon by the State Commission.  It is further argued that the Commissions are not bound by the agreed rate of interest and that the State Commission had the jurisdiction to grant any amount of interest while granting the refund.  In his Appeal, the Complainant has stated that he is entitled to interest                           @ 15% p.a.

9.      It is not disputed that during the pendency of the present Appeals, the Appellant i.e. Suncity Projects Private Limited had refunded the amount of ₹4,06,250/- along with interest                      @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.

10.    The first and foremost argument which goes to the very root of the impugned order is whether the State Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the Complaint.  The pecuniary jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the Complaint.  The Complainant has stated that he had booked a 250 sq.yd. residential plot @ ₹6500/- per sq. yd. and paid a sum of ₹4,06,250/- on 20.02.2013.  The Consumer Protection Act was amended in the year 2019 and the new Act had come into operation w.e.f. 20.07.2020.  A new definition relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Complaint has been incorporated in the new Act.  Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with the jurisdiction including the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.  It reads as under:   

“47. Jurisdiction of State Commission. –

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit: Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench.

(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it: Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference.

(4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.”

11.    Before passing of this Act and inclusion of Section 47, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commissions was determined under the old Act.  In Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., I (2017) CPJ I (NC), this Commission has held as under:

12.       Issue No.(ii) and (iii)

Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1.00 crore.  Therefore, what has to be seen, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, is the value of the goods or services and the amount of the compensation claimed in the complaint.  If the aggregate of (i) the value of the goods or services and (ii) the compensation claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Similarly, if the aggregate of the value of (i) the goods or services and (ii) compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint exceeds Rs.20.00 lacs but does not exceed Rs.1.00 Crore, the State Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. xxxxxxxxxx”

12.    However, after the new Act has come into force, the determiner of the pecuniary jurisdiction has changed.  Instead of value of the goods or services, it is the paid amount as consideration which is the factor to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission.  Even where the Complaints are against unfair trade practice, it is the paid consideration amount which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Commission.  The issue relating to determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction under the new Act had come up for consideration before this Commission the case of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra).  In that case, M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. filed a Complaint before this Commission against the Insurance Company seeking following reliefs:

"91.     That the Complainant seeks financial reliefs on account of financial loss and detriment to the life and livelihood of its stakeholders and for the restoration of the Company. The total sum claimed for the restoration of the Factory Premises being Rs.28,23,05,135/- and relief from NPA which includes:

a.         The sum of Rs.9,96,50,500/- for the restoration of damaged and tilted buildings.

b.         The sum of Rs.73,03,656/- for the expenditure already incurred in restoration and replacement of Plant and Machinery.

c.         The sum of Rs.9,92,12,841/- for the loss of stocks.

d.         The sum of Rs.86,38,138/- for restoration and replacement of Plinth and foundation.

e.         The sum of approximately Rs.6,75,00,000/- for relief from NPA Other Reliefs and compensation sought:

f.          Interest at the rate of 18% from the date of occurrence of the event.

g.         Rs.1,00,00,000/-for mental pain and agony of the stakeholders.

h.         Rs.2,72,00,000/- (Approx.) towards compensation on account of loss of business. As Prior to the incident the business of the Company was growing at the rate of 25% every year.

i.          An amount towards ante lite, pendent lite and future interest as the Hon'ble Commission deemed fit. 

j.          Cost of the litigation as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Commission”

13.    The prayer clause in the said Complaint read as under:-

“X. Prayer Clause

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to grant:

a.         The above mentioned Compensation/ relief sought.

b.         Compensation for deficiency in service on account of wrongful repudiation of the Claim in its entirety in contravention of the terms and conditions of the 'Standard Fire and Special Perils' Policy of Insurance, delay caused by the Respondents in settlement of the claim and non-determination of the estimate of loss sustained by the manufacturing unit of the Complainant;

c.         Any order(s) which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good faith.”

14.    The issues which arose before this Commission in the said case were as under:-

“5.       In the present case a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") because the value of the consideration paid in the present case i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance Policies was only Rs.3,20,525/- and Rs.1,23,037/- the total of which comes to Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees Four Lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores) as provided under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019.”

15.    The argument on behalf of the Complainant was addressed before this Commission and incorporated in the said order is as under:-

6.         Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Complainant submitted that under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") the National Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the good or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore), whereas under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores). According to the learned Senior Counsel only the value of the compensation claimed has been omitted from Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 and the present Consumer Complaint is maintainable and this Commission will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. He further submitted that a liberal view should be taken as if "the word value of consideration paid" is taken to be the amount paid for the purchase of goods or services by a Consumer then even though Insurance Policy taken by the Consumer be above Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), factually there will no instance of making payment by any Consumer premium of more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore) and if such a strict view is taken then the claims regarding Insurance will have to be necessarily filed either before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and not before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which will create great hardship to such Consumers.”

16.    This Commission has held as under:-

“7.       The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainant cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true that under the Act of 1986, pecuniary jurisdiction was to be determined by taking the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. Meaning thereby that the value of the goods or services as also the compensation is to be added to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the National Commission has the jurisdiction or not. This law was laid down by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, I (2017) CPJ I (NC). Thus in the Act of 1986 it was "the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed" taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. For example, if a person has agreed to purchase a Flat/ Apartment/ Plot for about Rs.60,00,000/- and he is claiming refund as also compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- then the value will exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission. Similar, would be the case of taking Insurance Policy of above Rs.1,00,00,000/-or may be below Rs.1,00,00,000/- but taking into consideration the premium paid and the compensation claimed if the value exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission.

8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.

9. For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:

"34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:"

"47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:"

"58. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:"

10. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/ taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid by the Complainant is only Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees four lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is not above Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.”

17.    It, therefore, is amply clear that it is the amount of consideration paid, which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission.  In this case, the consideration amount paid by the Complainant was ₹4,06,250/-. Vide Notification No.GSR 912(E) dated 30.12.2021, the Government had made certain changes in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commissions.  The relevant part of the Notification reads as under:

“4.       Jurisdiction of State Commission – Subject to the other provisions of the Act and in pursuance of proviso to sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complains where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds fifty lakh but does not exceed two crore rupees.”

18.    The State Commission, therefore, has the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ₹50 Lakhs but does not exceed                 ₹2 Crores.  In the present case, the consideration amount is less than ₹50 Lakhs and therefore, the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. 

19.    While dealing with the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, the State Commission has held that since the contention of the Complainant had been that the contract was unfair and therefore, the value of the goods and the services are to be considered and not the consideration paid.  Although, this concept is contrary to the provision of law as the law requires that the consideration paid is the factor which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction even in the case where the contract is challenged on the ground of being unfair contract but even if for the sake of argument, I accept the interpretation given by the State Commission to the clause (ii) of Section 47, still the value of contract is less than ₹50 Lakhs.  In the Complaint, the Complainant has alleged that he had booked a plot of 250 sq. yd. @ ₹6500/-/- per sq. yd.  The total value of the plot thus comes to ₹16,25,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) which is less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.  The impugned order apparently, therefore, has been passed by the State Commission without jurisdiction.  Since the impugned order itself is without jurisdiction, there is                       no need to enter into the merits of the other contentions raised by the parties.

20.    In view of the above discussion, while the Appeal No.980 of 2022 filed by the Suncity Projects Private Limited is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, the Appeal No.1024 of 2022 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.