M/s Liffey Realtor Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Brijesh Pratap Singh have approached this Commission by filing a Complaint against Union Bank of India, Bhat Bazar Branch, Mumbai, Maharashtra, M/s Orbit Ayas Pvt. Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra  and Mr. Dharmesh Rajendra Chokshi, seeking the following reliefs:

“a. pass an order in favour of complainants and against Opposite Parties No.1, Bank that the dishonor and return of Cheque no. 869604, dated 20.06.2020 & Cheque No. 869534, dated 09.07.2020 by the Opposite Party NO. 1 is illegal and arbitrary and Opposite Party No.1 has committed deficiency in service,

b. pass an order in favour of complainants and against Opposite Parties that the Opposite parties have acted in connivance and collusion against complainants and has caused huge loss to the complaints, amounting to Rs.56 Crores and Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainants,

c. pass an order in favour of complainants and against Opposite Parties for payment of Rs.2.50 crores to the Complainants as per the cheque  amount,

d. pass an order in favour of Complainants and against Opposite Parties for payment of interest @ 3% per  month on award amount from the dated of cheques and up to the date of its actual payment,

e. pass an order in favour of Complainants and against Opposite Parties for payment of compensation of Rs. 10 Crores on account of loss of goodwill and reputation, Rs.50 lakhs for harassment, mental agony, etc.

f. pass an order for payment of Rs.1,05,000/- as cost of litigation by Opposite Parties to the Complainants,

g. pass such order and/or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

2.       The Office had not registered the said Complaint and had given a Diary No. 21105/NCDRC/2020 dated 23.11.2020.

3.       M/s Liffey Realtor Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Brijesh Pratap Singh have stated in Paragraph 1.7 of the Complaint that M/s Orbit Ayas Pvt. Limited, Mumbai arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 through  Mr. Dharmesh Rajendra Chokshi, arrayed as Opposite Party No. 3 had issued a Cheque bearing no. 869604 dated 20.06.2020 for ₹50,00,000/- in favour of Mr. Brijesh Pratap Singh, Complainant No. 2 drawn on Union Bank of India, Opposite Party No.1 to settle its due and partial discharge of its liability. In Paragraph 1.8, it has been stated that another Cheque bearing No. 869534 dated 09.07.2020 of ₹2,00,00,000/- in favour of M/s Liffey Realtor Pvt. Ltd. drawn on Union Bank of India, Opposite Party No.1 through RTGS was issued by M/s Orbit Ayas Pvt. Limited, Mumbai, Opposite Party No. 2 through  Mr. Dharmesh Rajendra Chokshi, Opposite Party No. 3 .

4.       The aforementioned two Cheques were deposited in the Union Bank of India, Bhat Bazar Branch, Mumbai, Maharashtra, but they were  returned as dishonored vide memorandum dated 09.07.2020 for the reason “Debit not permitted from NPA Account”.

5.       Thus, the amount of two Cheques involved herein, if totaled comes to ₹2.5 Crores  only.

6.       The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 20/24.07.2020, vide Section 58 (1) (a) (i) has given jurisdiction to this Commission to entertain Complaints, where the value of goods and services paid as consideration exceeds ₹10 Crores.

7.       Admittedly, in the present case, the value of consideration is only ₹2.5 Crores, being the value of two Cheques issued by M/s Orbit Ayas Pvt. Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

8.       Mr. Soumyajit Pani, learned Counsel for the Complaints submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the Complaint and file it before the appropriate Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

9.       As this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, where the value consideration paid is ₹10 Crore or less and can only entertain a Complaint, where the value of consideration  paid is more than ₹10 Crore as per Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we permit the Complainants to withdraw the Complaint and file it before the appropriate Commission. Accordingly, we, dismiss this Complaint as withdrawn as it is not maintainable with liberty granted to the Complainants to approach the appropriate Commission under the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10.     Order Dasti.