Haryana

Panchkula

CC/252/2021

V.S BANSAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE BUILDERS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

07 Jun 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	252 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	01.06.2021
Date of Decision	:	07.06.2021

                                                                                           

1.       V.S.Bansal s/o Jyoti Parsad

2.       Sneh Lata Bansal w/o Sh. V.S.Bansal

 

          Both resident of # 1103, Milap Nagar, Near Manav Chowk, Ambala        City.

 

                                                                                               ….Complainants

Versus

 

Omaxe Builders in International Trade Tower in New Chandigarh.

 

                                                                               ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                   Sh.Satpal, President.

                               Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                               Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:      None for the complainants.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.       The present complaint received through registered post on 01.06.2021. The office has assigned the registration no. 252 of 2021 to the complaint and has submitted it before this Commission for consideration on its admissibility.

2.       Briefly stated the facts as per the complaint dated 26.05.2021 and the Annexure dated 29.01.2013 appended with complaint are that the booking request made by the complainants for the commercial space no.INTT/SEVENTH/729 in the project of OP at International Trade Tower Chandigarh was accepted as per letter dated 29.01.2013 issued by said Bhanu Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd to the complainants bearing Customer ID No.INTT/278. It has been alleged by the complainants that the possession of the above site has not been delivered to them even after the expiry of 10 years from the date of booking. It has also been alleged that the OP i.e. Company has promised them to deliver the possession within 5 years or to give one percent appreciation or so. It is further alleged that the complainants, namely Sh. V.S.Bansal is now 74 years old and his wife, namely, Sneh Lata Bansal is 71 years old. The intervention in the matter has been sought to do the needful.

3.       A complaint before it is admitted for adjudication is required to qualify, inter alia, various parameters, which may be enumerated as below;

1. That the complainants fall under the category of a consumer and that there exist a consumer dispute.
2. That this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
3. That the complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation as required under Section 69 (1) of CP Act,2019.
4. That the relief claimed do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

4.       The above parameters are being discussed in the same seriatim as under:-

a.        Regarding the status of the complainants as consumer, we find no documents such as the allotment letter, payment slip/receipt and any acknowledgment receipt etc. appended with the complaint which may clarify as to what amount has been paid by the complainants to the OP and what is the total consideration for the booked site. Moreover, as per the said letter dated 29.01.2013, the booked site is the commercial space. As per well settled legal proposition, the matter involving of booking of a commercial site is not maintainable in the Consumer Commission.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants have not alleged that commercial site was booked by them to earn livelihood by way of self-employment; hence, the complainants do not fall under the category of consumers.

b.       Regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, admittedly, the booked space is located at International Trade Tower, New Chandigarh which doesn’t fall under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Further, the office of the OP, namely, Bhanu Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.  is also at Chandigarh. The complainants are resident of Ambala,   therefore, this Commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entrain and try the present complaint. As per Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission, a complaint can be filed in the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the OP resides or carries his business or cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

 5.                 As per aforementioned factual position as well as the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is found that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as it lacks territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the present complaint is accordingly dismissed in limini with liberty to the complainants to approach the competent authority/court if they are so advised. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on:07.06.2021

          Dr.Sushma Garg                Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                 Member                          Member                               President

Note:            Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                   (Satpal)

                                                        President