Sadashiba Hembram filed a consumer case on 16 Jan 2019 against M/S. BPTP Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/1342/2010 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Jan 2019.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC.1342/2010 Dated:
In the matter of:
Sh. Sadashiba Hembram ....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/S BPTP Ltd. ...OPPOSITE PARTY
NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
O R D E R
By way of this order we are disposing of the application filed on behalf of OP for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction.
The OP has moved an application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of Pecuniary Jurisdiction, stating that the cost of the flat in question is Rs. 25,45,200/- and the complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, hence the total relief claim goes beyond the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Forum i.e. Rs.20 lacs. It is submitted that this Forum does not have Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, 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 reported as Manu/CF/0499/16.
Arguments on application was addressed on behalf of complainant, in which it is stated that the present complaint is of 2010 and judgment of Ambrish Kumar Shukla was passed in 2016 and hence it has no retrospective effect. It is further stated on behalf of complainant that the objection of Pecuniary Jurisdiction should be taken at the first instance, in the present complaint written statement was filed by OP long back and even the evidence as well as written argument are filed by the parties and present complaint is pending for order, hence, the objection of Pecuniary Jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eyes of Laws. In support of his contention, the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Pradeep Kumar Batra Vs. M/s Three Sea Shelters Pvt. Ltd. authored by Sh. Prem Narain Presiding Member.
We have gone through the file as well as the judgments cited above filed by the complainant.
In the present case, the complainant has relied upon the judgement cited above, the said judgement is of single member of the National Commission and the same is “per incuriam” against the ratio of the Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s judgment, as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in 1st Appeal No.2080 of 2017 titled as Vikul Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s Ramprastha Promoters and Developers decided on 20.2.2018
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the judgments relied upon by the complainant is not applicable in the present case. The cost of the flat/plot and relief claimed exceeds the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly, the application filed by the OP is allowed and the complaint be returned to the complainant along with annexures/ documents by retaining a copy of the same for records with liberty to file the same before the competent Forum as per the Law. The particulars in the light of the judgement 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 are as follows.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to the parties. File be consigned to record room. Announced in open Forum on 16/01/2019.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.