Haryana

Panchkula

CC/250/2016

Mrs KUSUM BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD . - Opp.Party(s)

D.S SOUNDH

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	250 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	14.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	03.01.2017

 

 

Mrs.Kusum Bansal w/o Sh.Vinod Kumar, # 286, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Mandi Bhawan, C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula, through its Chief Adminstrator.

2.       Market Committee, Sector-20, Panchkula, through its Secretary.

 

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Mr.Ajay Gupta, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

 

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the prayer that to deliver the possession of the shop. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental harassment and delay. To pay Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The complainant has allotted a shop No.28, 3^rd floor, Sector-20, Panchkula by the Ops and sale consideration was agreed to Rs.25,48,816/- (Annexure C-4). The grievance of the complainant is that the possession has not been delivered to the complainant after lapsing 8 years from the booking thereby causing huge financial loss to the complainant. The complainant before this Forum seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.55,000 as cost of litigation.
3. When the case was fixed for filing reply to the application for dismissal of the complaint by the Ops. Counsel for the complainant had made a separate statement in which he stated that he did not want to file the reply to the application filed by the Ops. The appropriate order may be passed.
4. After going through the application filed by the counsel for the Ops as well as complaint filed by the complainant and the judgment held by a three Members Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 07.10.2016 in C.C. No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum in such cases is to be determined on the consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, alongwith the compensation, if any, claimed and the interest was also to be taken into account. In this case, the agreed sale consideration being Rs.25,48,816/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.55,000 as cost of litigation, the aggregate comes to more than Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
5. Hence, in view of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, the complaint is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced

03.01.2017                       ANITA KAPOOR                DHARAM PAL

                                        MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

 

                                                     DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT