Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

CC/22/34

IQBAL MUSTAFA S/O LATE SHREE GULSHER KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTOR OF RAJ HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

R K SHUKLA

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.34 OF 2022

FILED ON 06.12.2022 DECIDED ON 19.12.2022

 

IQABAL MUSTAFA.                                                                                           …          COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

                 

DIRECTOR, RAJ HOMES PVT.LTD.                                                                 …         OPP. PARTY

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL     :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK    :      MEMBER 

                              

                                      O R D E R

19.12.2022

 

            Shri R. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.

 

                       

As per Shri S. S. Bansal :   

                       This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, seeking relief of sum of Rs.48,06,880/- along with compensation and costs totaling Rs.55,56,880/-

2.                On going through the complaint, it is observed that admittedly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.24,03,300/- to the opposite parties towards cost of the flat. It is stated in his complaint that as per agreement, the complainant promised him to return Rs.48,06,880/- if the complainant is not interested to take the flat till 21.06.2021.

3.                As per powers conferred by proviso to Section 47(1) (a) (i), read with sub clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the ‘Act’) the Central Government vide notification dated

-2-

30.12.2021 has notified that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, but does not exceed rupees two crore.

4.                In the instant complaint, admittedly the complainant had paid Rs.24,03,300/- towards cost of the flat. Thus clearly, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Complaint does not rest with the State Commission.

5.                In the circumstances and in view of the order passed by the National Commission in Consumer Case No. 833 of 2020 M/S Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Ors and the order passed by this Commission in CC No.35 of 2020 (Smt. Swati Telang vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd) decided on 10.09.2020, we are of the view that the complaint as filed by the complainant is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission and not of State Commission.

6.                In view of the aforesaid, as the complainant has to file complaint before appropriate District Commission, the complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate District Commission in accordance with law.

7.                The amount of court fees deposited if any, be refunded to the complainant.

 

                                                                         

                   (S. S. Bansal)                       (Dr. Monika Malik)   

                Presiding Member                          Member