DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 579/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
17.11.2017 24.11.2017 07.12.2017
Complainant: Gopi Chand Shaw, S/o Mr. Narayan Shaw, 5B/1, Tiljala Road,
Kolkata-700 039.
Vs.
Opposite Parties:- 1) M/s. Dharitri Infraventure private Limited,
Registered Office at-194, Canal Street, 4th Floor,
Kolkata-700 048.
2) M/s. Royal Infra Developer, 549/1, Dakhindari Road
Kolkata-700 048.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.
ORDER: 02
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have neither delivered the possession in the questioned flat along with registration in their favour within the stipulated period as per the agreement for sale nor refund the amount as paid by them as per the schedule of the agreement.
We took up the hearing of the complaint on the point of its admissibility. At the very outset we have noticed that in the paragraph no-3 of the petition of complaint the Complainant have mentioned the total cost of the flat which they agreed to purchase and with a view to purchase the same they have entered in to an agreement for sale with the OPs is for Rs.32,00,000/- and in the prayer portion the Complainant has sought for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore the total value of the complaint is for Rs.37,00,000/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. As per the Section 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-.
But in the instant complaint as the cost of the flat has crossed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence if we add the compensation amount as sought for by the Complainant with the cost of the flat, then undoubtedly the total amount will cross the jurisdiction of the ld. District Forum. So considering the abovementioned aspect we are of the view that this complaint cannot be entertained by this Ld. Forum.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complaint is dismissed being barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and without being admitted. However the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court/Commission, if not barred otherwise.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me:
