NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/940/2016

SATYABATI PANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED & 3 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. ANAMIKA MEHRA

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 940 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 08/07/2016 in Complaint No. 26/2015 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. SATYABATI PANDA
W/O. DHIRENDRA KUMAR R/O. H NO. 500-B, MIG FLATS, SECTOR-61,
CHANDIGARH
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED & 3 ORS.
THROUGH HIS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 6TH FLOOR, ARUNACHAL BUILDING, 19, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,
NEW DELHI
2. M/S. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED,
THROUGH HIS MANAGING DIRECTOR, I.T. PARK, MANI MAJRA, U.T.
CHANDIGARH
3. M/S. PARSVNATH, DEVELOPERS, PARSVNATH ROYALS,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER, BEHIND SOCIETY NO. 105, SECTOR-20,
PANCHKULA
4. M/S. PARSVNATH, DEVELOPERS.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER, PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHADRA METRO STATION, SHAHADARA,
DELHI
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Rakesh Bharadwaj, Advocate for R-1&2

Dated : 15 Nov 2016
ORDER

1.       This First Appeal, by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 08.07.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.26/2015.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the short ground that since the total amount paid by the Complainant to the Developer, the Respondents herein, was only a sum of ₹12,32,024/- and the same being less than ₹20,00,000/-, it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

2.       Since admittedly the price of the flat was ₹19,53,275/- and the compensation claimed in the Complaint was ₹54,38,528/-, which is more than ₹20,00,000/- and less than ₹1,00,00,000/-, in view of the decision of a Larger Bench of this Commission dated 07.10.2016, passed in Consumer Case No. 97 of 2016, the impugned decision cannot be sustained.

3.       Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the afore-noted Complaint is restored to the board of the State Commission for further proceedings in accordance with law.  The parties are permitted to file their written submissions at the time of final hearing of the Complaint.

4.       The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 06.01.2017 for further proceedings. 

5.       The Appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.