Maharashtra

DCF, South Mumbai

CC/12/2015

JITENDRA BAJRANGLAL SHARMA THROUGH CA BAJRANGLAL HIRALAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CLASSIC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJEEV TRIPATHI

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

SOUTH MUMBAI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOUTH MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 1st Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/2015
 
1. JITENDRA BAJRANGLAL SHARMA THROUGH CA BAJRANGLAL HIRALAL SHARMA
B-101, HARI BLDG, SHRI SHIVSHAKTI CHS LTD, SANTOSHI MATA MANDIR ROAD, VAISHET PADA, KURAR VILLAGE, MALAD(E), MUMBAI 400097.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. CLASSIC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR
1ST FLOOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, ANNEX BANK STREET, HARNIMON CIRCLE, FORT, MUMBAI 400 023.
2. KARAN NAIK PROPRIETOR OF VEENA ESTATE CONSULTANTS
L4D/S-19, ASWATH CHS, PRATIKSHA NAGAR, SION, MUMBAI 400 022.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S.M. RATNAKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. S.G. CHABUKSWAR MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:RAJEEV TRIPATHI, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Order  Below  Exhibit 1

 

PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        Heard Shri. Rajeev Tripathi, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant. Read the complaint and documents filed with the complaint.  The Complainant himself in para no.4 of the complaint has alleged that, on 14/07/2011 the Opposite Parties executed registered agreement of the disputed flat with the Complainant for the consideration of Rs.28,00,000/-.  The Complainant has in the prayer clause though claimed reliefs against the Opposite Parties to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and the advocate for the Complainant made submission that, in view of the prayer made in the complaint, the present complaint is maintainable before this Forum as provided under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act.  We find that, the advocate for the Complainant is misinterpreting the provision of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The said section says that, District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-.  In the present case we are of the view that, the value of the goods or services agreed to be obtained by the Complainant as referred above from the Opposite Parties and as per the documents placed on record is admittedly Rs.28,00,000/- as the Complainant has prayed for possession of the flat and as such in our candid view the submission made by the Complainant’s advocate cannot be accepted as legal and proper to hold that, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  In view of the above discussion the value of the complaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction as provided u/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint is liable to be rejected as the same cannot be entertained by this Forum.  Hence, following order is passed -

O R D E R

i.      The complaint is rejected and the Complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra,

        Mumbai, if he desires so and the same may be returned to the Complainant, if requested to that effect.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.M. RATNAKAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.G. CHABUKSWAR]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.