RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SUGAM MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dtd. 1/3/2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 110 of 2017.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants (the 'complainants') and for the respondents (the 'developer'). We have also perused the record including inter alia the State Commission's impugned Order dtd. 1/3/2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) Briefly, 19 individual persons purchased 19 individual flats from the developer. All 19 were delivered possession. The respective registrations of the flats were undertaken between 2010 and 2013. Subsequently, after some time, on 20/7/2018, 18 of them filed a complaint before the State Commission asking for directions to the developer to execute registration of a scheduled area of approximately 2840 sq. ft. along with compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh each and also for order against the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to pay Rs.50.00 thousand from his own pocket for the mischief caused in the name of rendering public duty. The State Commission vide its Order dtd. 1/3/2019 dismissed the complaint on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. The gist of its examination of this issue is being reproduced below for reference: After considering the entire materials on record and after giving due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates of the respective parties and keeping in view the authority referred above, we are constrained to hold that if the aggregated value of all the flats purchased by the complainants, the value of Rs.28,50,000.00 for area of 2840 sq. ft. along with two rooms on the ground floor and the compensation claim by the complainants amounting to Rs.36,00,000.00 are taken together, it will certainly cross the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. In view of the above, the application being IA/425/2018 is, thus, allowed on contest. Consequently, the instant complaint is rejected being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, this order will not debar the complainants to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.