STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

Complaint No.55 of 2015

Date of Institution: 01.05.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 13.05.2015

Pankaj Jain S/o Sh.Adesh Kumar Jain R/o 210, Surya Niketan, Vikas Marg Extension, New Delhi-110092.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

1. M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 1/2873, Ram Nagar, Loni road, Sahdara, Delhi through its Managing Director.
2. Payal Gandhi, Senior G.M. (Customer Service) of M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. having its corporate office at Bestech House, 124, Sector 44, Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

Present:-    Mr.Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

                                       O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Learned counsel for the complainant has requested to refund the amount of Rs.16 lacs, compensation of Rs.5 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to him.  It is alleged that this amount is exceeding Rs.20 lacs, so the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Panchkula (In short “State Commission”) is having jurisdiction to try the complaint. The main dispute is about refund of the amount of Rs.16 lacs and right to claim compensation on the basis of harassment and interest etc.  This point is yet to be decided and cannot be added in the cause of action.  Averments about compensation on account of harassment etc. is hypothetical and seems to be on higher side just to enable complainant to file complaint before State Commission. At this stage dispute is about less than Rs.20 lacs, so complaint should have been filed before the District Forum. 

2.      Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint.  Hence, the same is dismissed being not maintainable.   He may file complaint before competent fora if desires.

3.      However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the petitioner/complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the Consumer Fora to seek remedy before the District Forum, if so advised.