Delhi

StateCommission

CC/230/2015

SH. SUDERSHAN LAL VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VOHRA CONSTRUCTIONS & PROPERTIES & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                            Date of Decision: 28/04/2015

Consumer Complaint No. 230/2015

 

In the matter of:

SHRI SUDERSHAN LAL VERMA

R/o A-110/18-A, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,

Near Ram Mandir,

Kewal Park, Azadpur,

Delhi-110033.                                             Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.     M/S VOHRA CONSTRUCTIONS & PROPERTIES

        (Through proprietor, Mr. Prikshit Vohra),

        A-20, Shop No-4, Gopal Nagar,

        Azadpur, Delhi-110033.

       

       

2.     MR. PRIKSHIT VOHRA,

        Proprietor, M/s Vohra Construction &

        Proprietor, A-20, Shop No.4,

        Gopal Nagar, Azadpur

        Delhi-110033                              Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                             -                  Member (Judicial)

SH. 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?

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

Heard, the Complainant on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Complainant allegedly entered into a collaboration agreement with the OP for construction on the plot measuring 60 sq.yds. After constructing all the 4 floors, OP sold two floors.  Thus two floors were left in possession of the Complainant. Grievance of the Complainant is that there is a seepage on the said two floors. Complainant has placed on record photocopies of the photographs showing the walls.  Complainant has prayed for directions to the OP for removing the defects or to pay to him an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs.

 

Complainant has highly exaggerated his claim for removing the seepage in the walls to Rs. 20 lakhs simply to file the matter in this Commission.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the matter does not lie within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.   Complaint is accordingly returned to the Complainant.  Complainant is at liberty to file the same in the appropriate District Forum.  

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(S.C.  JAIN)

MEMBER

 

(m)