Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016
5. The first question which arises for consideration in some of the complaints is as to whether this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints or not. In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or services as the case may be and the compensation if any claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rs.1 Crore. The value of the services in such cases would be sale consideration agreed between the parties, as held by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Since the taxes were also payable to the OPs in addition to the price of the flat, the said taxes have also to be added to the price of the flat, in order to determine the aggregate sale consideration agreed between the parties, as held by this Commission vide order dated 31.1.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 198 of 2015 - Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters. In the past, this Commission has awarded compensation in the form of interest @ 12% per annum in the cases where the flat buyer is seeking possession of the flat allotted to him alongwith compensation. If the compensation calculated @ 12% per annum is added to the sale consideration agreed between the parties inclusive of the taxes which, according to the learned counsel for the complainants, were payable to the OPs, the aggregate figures come to more than Rs.1 Crore in each of these consumer complaints. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that this Commission does not possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.