Delhi

East Delhi

CC/172/2018

SAURABH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RISHI UPPAL - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 172/18

                                                

Shri Saurabh Jain (Now known as Saurabh Singhvi)

S/o Shri Prakash Chand Jain

R/o G-5, Green Park Main

New Delhi – 110 016                                                                 ….Complainant

 

                                                                Vs.         

 

Shri Rishi Uppal

S/o Shri S.K. Uppal

R/o 153, Bank Enclave

Delhi – 110 092                                                                                …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 29.05.2018

Date of Order: 12.07.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Saurabh Jain (now known as Saurabh Singhvi) against Shri Rishi Uppal (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Saurabh Jain (now known as Saurabh Singhvi) agreed to purchase a residential plot of 300 sq. yds. on which construction of Villa consisting of two bedrooms with attached toilets, living room and kitchen in the project of Shri Rishi Uppal (OP), known as ‘The Kumaoni Village’, in the year 2007-08.  The total consideration of the property is stated to be Rs. 20,00,000/-.  He is stated to have paid the amount as follows:-

1. 20.04.2008                Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash
2. 17.09.2010                Rs. 3,00,000/- vide cheque no. 869688
3. 25.10.2010                Rs. 2,14,000/- via RTGS

 

•  

1. Project name :                                   The Kumaoni Village
2. Plot size:                                            300 sq. yds.
3. Location:                                            Mukteshwar (Uttrakhand)
4. Nature:                                               Residential
5. Start of construction in  year :        2008
6. Extended completion  in year:       by the end of 2017

 

3.  

      

Heard on admission.

4.         While hearing the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, two points cropped up in respect of jurisdiction.  Firstly, pecuniary jurisdiction and secondly the territorial jurisdiction.  It was argued on behalf of complainant that since the amount claimed was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, this Forum was having jurisdiction.  With regard to territorial jurisdiction, he has argued that OP was based within the jurisdiction  of this Forum; negotiations took place at his office and payments were made there also. 

5.         To ascertain this, a look has to be made to the allegations in the complaint as well as the documents placed on record.   Firstly, the point of pecuniary jurisdiction is taken up.  If a look is made to complaint, it has been noticed that in para 46 of the complaint, the complainant have invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that the amount of compensation claimed was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.  No doubt, the amount claimed in the complaint has been less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, but it is a subject matter of the property which matters for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  In para 10 of the complaint, he has stated that the total consideration value of the property was Rs. 20,00,000/-.  However, no document has been placed on record to show that the value of the property was Rs. 20,00,000/-.  No agreement has been placed on record which the complainant have stated in para 15 of the complaint having been entered into.  In the absence of any document, the plea taken in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction that the claim was less than Rs. 20,00,000/- cannot be accepted at all.  Therefore, the argument of Ld. Counsel for the complainant that this court was having pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be accepted.  It goes.

6.         Coming to the second leg of arguments that this Forum was having territorial jurisdiction as office of OP was based within the jurisdiction of this Forum; negotiations were made at their office and payments were made in the office itself.  For this, the documents placed on record have also to be looked into.  If a look is made to the brochure, filed alongwith the complaint, the office of OP have been stated to be at Lajpat Nagar-III.  Documents placed on record do not show that Rishi Uppal (OP) have been based within the jurisdiction of this Forum; negotiations for booking took place at the office/residence of OP and the payments have been made there.  Thus, the plea taken on behalf of complainant that this Forum was having territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 

7.  

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President