Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/65/2017

Mohit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Sobti, Adv.

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

The complainants are seeking refund of amount paid with interest @15% p.a.  At the time of arguments, very serious objection was raised by Sh.Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties that when complaint was filed, the amount involved to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was more than Rs.1 crore. To the objection raised, Counsel for the complainants did not answer. He only stated that one miscellaneous application bearing No.1125 of 2017 to amend the prayer clause was filed by the complainants. Be that as it may, the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is a legal one and it can be decided at any stage. Admittedly, the complaint was barred by pecuniary jurisdiction.

                        At this stage, Counsel for the complainants states that he be allowed to withdraw this complaint with liberty to file a-fresh one either before this Commission or before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

                        To the prayer made, no objection has been raised by Sh.Rohit Tanwar, AGM (Legal) of the Opposite Parties.

                        Liberty granted.

                        Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

                        On submitting one photocopy of complete original file, Registry will return all the three files, in original (except the zimini orders), to the complainants, within a week from today, against proper receipt.

                        Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge