DR. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL S/O. LATE SHRI RAM KISHAN DASS, R/O. H NO 5/5005 AMAR COLONY SONEPAT Vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND 4 OTHERS 115 ANSAL BHAWAN 16, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of six Appeals by the Complainant, challenge is laid to the orders, all dated 8.7.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short the State Commission ) in Consumer Complaints Nos. 118, 134, 136, 145, 148 & 149/2016. By identical orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaints on the ground that these do not fall within its pecuniary jurisdiction. While holding so, the State Commission has granted liberty to the Complainants to seek redressal of their grievance before a proper Forum or Civil Court as per law.

(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders are unsustainable.

(3.) Admittedly, the total value of each of the subject flats, even by excluding the amount of compensation claimed in each of the Complaints, exceeds Rs.20,00,000.00. The question with regard to determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora came up for consideration before a larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - (Consumer Complaint No.97/2016 and other connected cases). Vide order dated 07.10.2016, three member Bench has held as under :