SANCHANA GUPTA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/appellant booked a residential flat with the respondent in a project namely 'Ekaantam' which the respondent was developing in Sector-112/113 of Gurgaon. The sale consideration of the flat, as per the averment made in the appeal, was Rs.2-2.5 Crores. The complainant/appellant made an initial payment of Rs.15 lacs to the respondent. No further payment was made. The complainant/appellant, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint which was contested by the respondent which also annexed a cheque of Rs.15 lacs to its reply. The cheque was accepted. The Consumer Complaint however, was dismissed by the State Commission relying upon the decision of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 on noticing that the cost of the flat was more than Rs.1 Crore. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission.

(2.) At the time the Consumer Complaint was instituted before the State Commission, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was in force. In terms of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, the State Commission, at that time, had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a Consumer Complaint where the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed, as the case might be and the compensation claimed in the complaint, exceeded Rs.20 lacs but did not exceed Rs.1 Crore.

(3.) As held by this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra), the value of the services in such a case would be the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. The following extracts from Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra), are relevant in this regard: 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.