Haryana

Karnal

CC/681/2023

Santosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Shehri Vikrs Pradhikaran - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Kumar

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.681 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.06.12.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:21.12.2023

 

Santosh wife of Raj Kumar, resident of H.No.52, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal, through Special Power of Attorney Mohit Singla.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran,  Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its Estate Officer.

                                                                    …..Opposite party.

 

      Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr.Suman Singh…………Member

 

 Present: None for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Today the case is fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility.

2.             The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant purchased a building No.29, Sector-5, Karnal, inE-auction held by the OP on free hold basis. A sum of Rs.15,15,040/- was deposited by the complainant with the OP as 10% bid and thereafter, deposited remaining amount on several dates. Thereafter, the OP gave the possession of the site/building to the complainant. After taking the possession, the complainant visited the site found that the sector in which the site was allotted, has not been developed by the OP. The roads have not been properly made by the OP nor did the work of sewerage and pipe lines in the said sector. Besides this, a high tension wire is passing over the site in question. In this way, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.

3.             None has put in appearance on behalf of complainant.

4.             As per Section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the admissibility of the complaint is ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed. The present complaint has been filed on 06.12.2023 and twenty one days is going to be expired but none has appeared on behalf of complainant. The working of Judicial Courts are closed from 23^rd December 2023 due to winter vacation and during winter vacation most of the advocates do not come in the Court.

5.             Now, the question arises for consideration before this Commission is that whether this Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?

6.             Pecuniary Jurisdiction has been defined in Section 34 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

Section 34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees.

Vide notification issued by the Department of Consumer affairs dated 30^th day of December, 2021, District Commission is having jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.

7.             In the present complaint, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,51,50,400/- to the OP as cost of the site in question. The complainant has claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation towards non-development of the area, mental agony, etc. For deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction, value of the goods or services paid is to be considered and not the claimed amount. In the present complaint, the complainant has paid Rs.1,51,50,400/- as consideration, whereas as per the notification dated 30^th day of December, 2021, this Commission is having  pecuniary jurisdiction to decide and entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.

8.             Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.  Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced
Dated: 21.12.2023

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

   (Vineet Kaushik)        Dr.Suman Singh

          Member                  Member