Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/18/2017

Anil Kumar Bali - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Universal Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill, Adv.

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

At the time of arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Parties by making reference to the ratio of judgment passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA & 21 ORS. Vs. FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, stated that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction, when this complaint was entertained. It is stated that even if it is presumed that the complainant has restricted his claim qua compensation to the extent of Rs.2 lacs only by making statement on 11.01.2017, even then the total value of the claim raised would come to more than Rs.1 crore.

                        We have seen the documents and satisfied with the arguments raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

                        We feel that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence, the complaint stands disposed of with liberty to the complainant to file it a-fresh before the competent Fora.            

                        We make it very clear that if the complaint is filed by the complainant within 30 days, the Opposite Parties will not raise any objection qua limitation.

                        On submitting one photocopy of complete original file, Registry will return all the three files, in original, to the complainant, within a week from today, against proper receipt.

                        Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.