Delhi

StateCommission

CC/540/2016

SHLOK CHANDRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments: 12.08.2016

Date of Decision: 24.08.2016

Complaint No. 540/2016

 

In the matter of:

Shri Shlok Chandra,

S/o Shri Raghav Chandra,

R/o Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                      …..........Complainant

 

Versus

Jaypee Infratech Limited,

Sector-128,

Noida-201304 (UP)                                                                         ….............Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present complaint for directions to OP to execute and register  title deed in relation to apartment number KUB0042904 in tower-4 of project KUBE at Jaypee Greens, Sector-128, Noida and paid interest @18% compounded quarterly from 26^th May, 2014 / the date on which possession was to be handed over till date of actual handing over the possession.  The complainant has also prayed directions for completing construction and handing over possession, bear in service tax, stamp duty and registration charges from may, 2014 onwards, Rs.15 lacs as damages for mental agony, undue hardship and distress, litigation cost of Rs.5 lacs has also been prayed.
2. Apparently, the project is in Noida, office of OP is in Noida.  So the complaint should have been filed in Noida.  This Commission has no territorial jurisdiction.

 

3. It appears that complainant has not incorporated para relating to territorial jurisdiction only with a view to make this Commission escape noticing lack of territorial jurisdiction.

 

4. The complaint is dismissed in limini for want of territorial jurisdiction.

 

5. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         ​