State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarita Rani W/O. Suresh Kumar vs Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. Through Its ... on 21 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UTTAR PRADESH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/9/CC/119/2025
MAYANK VARSHNEY S/o. suresh kumar
PERMANENT ADDRESS - 312 , POST OFFICE ROAD , SECTOR-22 , ETAH,UTTAR PRADESH.
SARITA RANI W/o. Suresh Kumar
PERMANENT ADDRESS - 312 , POST OFFICE ROAD , SECTOR-22 , ETAH,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
SUNWORLD CITY PVT. LTD. Through its Director Mr. Suresh and mr. Sanjay khanna
PRESENT ADDRESS - A-4, GROUND FLOOR , NOIDA , SECTOR-4, NOIDA , GAUTAM
BUDDHA NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.
PERMANENT ADDRESS - 117, HANS BHAWAN , NEW DELHI , 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG , CENTRAL,DELHI.
BUSINESS ADDRESS - GH-01/C , NOIDA , SECTOR-168, NOIDA EXPRESSAY, NOIDA ,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
MAYANK VARSHNEY S/o. suresh kumarSARITA RANI W/o. Suresh Kumar
DATED: 21/07/2025
ORDER
Oral State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow.
Complaint No. 119 of 2025 1- Mrs. Sarita Rani w/o Mr. Suresh Kumar, R/o 312, Sector-22, Post Office Road, Etah-207001 U.P. 2- Mr. Mayank Varshney s/o Mr. Suresh Kumar, R/o 312, Sector-22, Post Office Road, Etah-207001 U.P. ....Complainants.
Versus 1- M/s Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. through its Director having registered office at 117, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 2- M/s Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. through its Director having another office at GH-01/C, Sector-168, Noida Expressway, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. 201305 3- M/s Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. through its Director having corporate office at A-4, Ground Floor, Sector-4, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. 201301 4- M/s Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. through its Director having registered office at Nilonip Shahpur, Dankaur Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. 201301 5- Mr. Suresh (DIN 09019589) Director, M/s Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd., 117, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 6- Mr. Sanjay Khanna (DIN 07848397) Director, M/s Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd., 117, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 ...Opposite Parties.
Present:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President. Hon'ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.
Sri Rishindra Vikram Singh, Advocate for complainant. None for OP no.2.
Date 21.7.2025 JUDGMENT (Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President) Heard Sri Rishindra Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant who appeared virtually when the matter was taken up through video conferencing.
Heard submissions of the learned counsel on the point of maintainability of the instant complaint particularly on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the State Commission can take cognizance of this matter having regard to nature of prayers made in the complaint irrespective of amount of consideration paid therefore.
We have heard submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant Sri Rishindra Vikram Singh and have gone through the record carefully. We propose to dispose of this complaint at the stage of admission.
Shorn of unnecessary details, by means of instant complaint, following prayers have been made by the complainants:-.
"1- To fully refund the amount paid by the complainant amounting to Rs.6,93,732.00 (Rupees six Lakhs Ninety Three Thousands Seven Hundred Thirty Two Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual realization of the said amount.
2- To pay compensation of Rs.15,60,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) in terms of loss of rental income calculated from the month of April, 2018 until September, 2024 along with interest and Rs.10,00,000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the mental agony suffered by the complainants due to deficiency in service by the opposite party.
3- To award a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards the litigation cost."
A perusal of para 23 of the complaint also reveals that the complainants themselves have mentioned the valuation, for the purpose of this complaint to be Rs.26,78,500.00.
Having noticed aforesaid fact, we find it relevant to refer to the provision contained in section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2019 which, for the ready reference, is quoted herein-below:-
"47- Jurisdiction of the State Commission- (1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:"
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit; ................................ ................................ ................................." Therefore, for ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction, any amount claimed as compensation is irrelevant for the purpose of section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 2019.
It appears that the legislature has deliberately omitted words "and compensation, if any, claimed" which were occurring in section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In order to compare the aforesaid difference, section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after referred to as Act of 1986, is also quoted herein below:-
"17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission- (1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and"
.................................. .................................. ................................." Thus, having regard to clear and unambiguous provision as contained in section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 2019 quoted above, this bench is of considered view that the present complaint is not cognizable by the State Commission because the valuation falls short of the statutory limit.
Therefore, we direct that the complaint be returned to the complainants for filing the same before the concerned District Commission in accordance with law.
The office is directed to return the original papers to the complainant forthwith.
Let this order be uploaded on the Website of this Commission at the earliest.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules. (Sudha Upadhyay) (Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava) Member President Jafri PA I Court No.1 ..................J AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA PRESIDENT ..................
SUDHA UPADHYAY MEMBER