Delhi

New Delhi

CC/19/2016

Saroj Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansal Properties &Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./19/2016                                                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

Smt. Saroj Sharma

W/o Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma

R/o A-321, Vipin Garden, Near Kakrola Mod,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                                       …… Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1. Ansal properties & Infrastructure Ltd.

Through directors/Managing director

115 Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Sushil Ansal

Chairman & Wholetime Director

115 Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

3. Pranav Ansal

Vice Chairman & Whole time Director

115 Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

4. Anil Kumar

Joint Managing Director & CEO

115 Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

5. Surendra Mukhija

Prop. M/S Surendera Properties

Having its office at:

H.O. Sikanderpur (Opp. Shriram Hospital)

Mehrauli Gurgaon road, Gurgaon-122002

 

Also At

 

Branch Office: Surendra Mukhija Prop.

M/s Surendera Properties

At: Kundli, gT Karnal Road,

Sonepat, Haryana

……. Opposite parties

 

 

H. M. VYAS  : MEMBER

ORDER

 The present Complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP. Arguments on application filed by OP  on maintainability of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction heard. We have considered material placed before us and arguments addressed with relevant provisions of law.

In Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as the compensation claimed. In the present complaint, during the course of argument, it reveals that the cost of the Flat in question is Rs. 19,12,500/-. The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- and also claimed 70,000/- towards litigation cost. As the aggregate value of the alleged Flat and the reliefs  claimed is more than Rs. 20,00,000/- , this District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. 

The Hon’ble National Commission has taken similar view also in the case of Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal (FA No. 1616/2017) decided on 30/08/17 and in the case of Raj Kishore Vs TDI reported as III(2017)CPJ 155.  

This view is also adopted by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Complaint Case no. 119/12 Ambica Steel Lts., Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

In the light of  Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016,  the complaint be returned to the complainant along with it Annexures. The complaint be returned to complainant with following particulars in the light of the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on 13/01/2016

• Date of return of complaint
•  

• The name of complainant(s)

 Smt. Saroj Sharma

W/o Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma

R/o A-321, Vipin Garden, Near Kakrola Mod,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

Brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint.

In Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016, Hon’ble NCDRC has held that in case where even part of deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter whether goods or services will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary Jurisdiction. In the present complaint, during the course of argument on admitted that the cost of the property in question is Rs. 19,12,500/-. The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- and also claimed 70,000/- towards litigation cost. As the aggregate value of the alleged Apartment against which reliefs  claimed is more than Rs. 20,00,000/- , this District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

In the light ofAmbrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Case no. 97 of 2016, decided by Hon’ble NCDRC on 07/10/2016,the complaint be returned to the complainant along with it Annexures by retaining a copy of the same for records and with liberty to the complainant to file Complaint before competent Forum as per the Law.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced  in open Forum on 27/03/2018 .

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                           (H M VYAS)

      MEMBER                                                                                         MEMBER