Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The fact of the Complaint Case in brief is that the Complainant No. 1 had purchased a “Vacation Time Share” by an agreement dated 03.03.1994 from the opposite parties for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. The Complainant No. 1 had requested the Opposite Parties to transfer the rights of the time share agreement with the opposite parties to the Complainant No. 2 being his son.
On 01.09.2008 over this issue, same problem arose between the parties and finally Complainant filed the instant Complaint Case claiming Rs. 20,50,000/- as compensation + Cost from the O.P.
Heard both sides over the mater and perused the respective papers in support of their contention.
At the end of argument, Ld. Advocate of the Complainant prays for compensation only as the other factors have already been settled; on receipt of payment of Rs. 4326/- on 31.10.2021 vide numbering ID No. 21871.
During the course of argument, Ld. Advocate of the O.P raised 3 fold objections apart from hearing on merit i.e.
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Pecuniary jurisdiction
- Limitation
Now, so far pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it appears from record that at the time of ‘admission hearing’ on 03.08.2015 this Commission was pleased to observe that the claim is inflated and the matter should be filed before Ld. DCDRC and matter was fixed for order on 27.08.2015. At that time Complainant filed an M.A on 24.08.2015 explaining certain facts about pecuniary jurisdiction. On 27.08.2015 the instant case was admitted ‘prima facie’.
In that MA/731/2015 one Chartered Accountant’s report (Annexure-B) was filed to elucidate the matter of pecuniary jurisdiction. It speaks the value of services Rs. 1,30,96,555/- only. If that valuation be treated as pecuniary jurisdiction aspect, then again it exceeds the outer limit of State Commission as per C.P. Act, 1986. So either way the instant case is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. Apart from that, deficiency of services by O.P is not proved.
In view of the said backdrop, the question of compensation is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Thus the instant Complaint Case is devoid of merit and dismissed.
