AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this First Appeal, by a Real Estate Developer and its three Directors, is to the order dated 06.07.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 614 of 2017. By the impugned order, while keeping open the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, based on the prayer made by the Respondent/Complainant for allotment of an alternative flat, the State Commission has admitted the Complaint for adjudication.
Although, in the impugned order, there is no reference to any other objection, which is now sought to be urged before us in this Appeal, namely, the Complaint is barred by limitation and the offer by the Appellants to the Complainant to deliver possession of an alternative flat at the current market price, we refrain from commenting on the said contention. Hence, the short question arising for consideration in this Appeal is whether the State Commission was justified in taking into consideration the cost of the flat as per the letter of intent dated 24.03.2007 and the amount of compensation, totalling 82,01,000/-, for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction.
In our view, in the light of Larger Bench decision dated 07.10.2016 of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. V. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC), wherein it has been held that for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, the price of the goods or services, as the case may be, agreed to be paid by the consumer, and the compensation, as claimed in the complaint, are the relevant factors, no fault can be found with the view taken by the State Commission.
Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.