Delhi

South Delhi

CC/188/2021

PARAG GAKHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEV BHOOMI PROJECTS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II UDYOG SADAN C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/188/2021
( Date of Filing : 28 Jun 2021 )
 
1. PARAG GAKHAR
H NO. 46, MANASAROVER COLONY, NEAR DUCKING SCHOOL ROHTAK HARYANA 124001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DEV BHOOMI PROJECTS PVT LTD
C-22 DEFENCE COLONY NEW DELHI 110024
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA PRESIDENT
  UMESH KUMAR TYAGI MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
None
......for the Complainant
 
None
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 15 Dec 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Case No.188/21

15.12.2021 

         

The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant for refund of the amount Rs.14,17,387/- alongwith 18% interest p.a. and damages to the tune of Rs.10,000,00/- and Rs.2,000,00/- as litigation costs.

 

The Complainant is a resident of Mansarovar Colony, Rohtak, Haryana which is not within the jurisdiction of this Commission and OP i.e. Dev Bhoomi Projects has it’s registered office at Ashoka Crescent, DLF, Phase-1, Gurugram, Haryana. The same addresses have been given for the other two Directors named in the memo of parties as OP Nos. 2 and 3, which also does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

As is apparent from the documents filed by the complainant that no reference has been made to any of the OPs being situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission. However, there is an acknowledgement slip of Rs.51,000/- annexed as Annexure-‘C-2’  issued by one Synergia Landbase Company Pvt. Ltd who have their office at Defence Colony but the said Company has not been impleaded as a party to the present complaint. Additionally, it is not clear as to the role of this aforesaid Company in the present complaint. It is also seen from the record that the complainant has not even mentioned in his complaint as to how the jurisdiction lies with this Commission.

 

The counsel for the complainant has filed certain judgments in support of his contention that jurisdiction lies with this Commission, which to our mind do not apply to the present case for the reason that the cause of action is sought to be created on the strength of Rs.51,000/- paid to one Synergia Landbase Company Pvt. Ltd. who is not a party to the present complaint and their role in the present complaint is not defined.

 

Therefore, we are of the considered view that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint for the above stated reasons.

         

          The complaint is dismissed in limine.

 

 

 

 
 
[ MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ UMESH KUMAR TYAGI]
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.