Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016
6. From the above, it is evident that the main prayer is in respect of refund of the deposited amount of Rs.33,60,602/-. The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided by the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC). A reading of this judgment shows that this Commission has held that in cases where even the part deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. However, this judgment is silent on the issue of value of goods and services in cases where refund has been requested. Obviously, there is difference in the cases where parties want to go ahead and conclude the sale of goods or availment of services and where one party is only seeking the refund and thereby clearly deciding for non-execution of the agreement. In the cases of refund, the value of complaint has to be the value of the amount deposited plus compensation claimed. In the present case, amount deposited is Rs.33,60,602 /- and compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- has been demanded. Thus, the total figure does not cross the limit of Rupees One Crore, which is necessary for this Commission to exercise its jurisdiction. Even the addition of demanded interest shall not make the total value more than Rs. One Crore. In these circumstances, this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint case.