Delhi

StateCommission

CC/80/2016

MR. HARISHANKAR DEBNATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DSS BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH KUMAR

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision:17.02.2016

Complaint No.80/16

 

In the matter of:

Mr. Harishankar Debnath,

Son of Late Mr. Brahmanand Debnath,

R/o 62E/1, 1^st Floor,

Humanyunpur, S.J. Enclave,

New Delhi-110029.                                                          …..........Complainant

 

Versus

1. M/s. DSS Buildtech Private Limited,

Having its registered office at:-

506, 5^th Floor, Times Square Building,

B-Block, Sushant Lok, Phase-I,

•  

(Through its Director)

 

2. Equinox Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Having its office at:

J-10, Green Park Main,

New Delhi-110016.

(Through its Director)

 

3. Mr. Nikhil Kumar,

K-24C, Hauz Khas Enclave,

New Delhi.                                                             ….....Opposite Parties

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The present complaint is yet at the stage of admission.  It is not necessary to enter into the merits of the case as the same can be disposed of on purely legal question.  The complainant has pleaded that OP-1 is engaged in the business of construction and selling of flats, OP-2 has represented himself as one of the dealer who is entitled and authorised to deal with the apartments.  OP-3 is alleged to have been introduced OP-2 to the complainant.

 

2. Agent and introducer cannot be fastened with any liability.

 

3. MOU copy of which is placed at page-21 recites in opening line that the same has been made at Gurgaon and proposed apartments is also in Sohna, Gurgaon. Clause 14 of the MOU recites that courts at Gurgaon, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh alone was have the jurisdiction. Hence, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction.

 

4. The complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file complaint at court having territorial jurisdiction.

 

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

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                  (S. C. Jain) 

  Member​