Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/456

BIMLA DAHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ELDECO INFRA. & PROPERTIES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Complaint case No.456/2012

 

 

 

Smt. Bimla Dahiya                                                              … Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s. Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd.                     … Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

For the Complainant:	Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite parties	Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate

 

 

Dated: 21^st May, 2018

 

ORDER

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

                 A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) is filed by the complainant stating therein that the complainant booked a villa with the OP at Buckingham, Eldeco Country  in District Sonepat, Haryana measuring 500 sq. yds. It is stated that cost of the said villa is around Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The possession  of the said Villa has already been taken by the complainant. It is alleged that some of the demands were made under coercion. It is  also alleged that there is deficiency in construction of the Villa in question.

                 During the arguments, counsel for the OP has pointed out that this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint as complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of the judgment passed by a three-Member Bench of the National in the case of Ambrish Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported as I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC). It is submitted that as per aforesaid judgment, it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

                 Nothing contrary is pointed out on behalf of the complainant.

                 Since the cost of unit is Rs.1,25,00,000/- in view of the aforesaid judgment, the matter does not lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is therefore returned to the complainant for presenting before the forum having appropriate jurisdiction in accordance with law.  Copy of the same be retained for record purpose.

                 A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rule. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri