This case record is taken up for consideration in the matter of passing order in respect of petition filed by OP of CC-174/22 wherefrom this MA case has been cropped up and the said petition has been filed on the ground that the CC-174/22 is not maintainable in the eye of law.

The above noted issue has been contested by the OP of this MA case who is the complainant of CC-174/22 by filing written objection.

The argument highlighted by Ld. Advocates of both sides has been heard in full.  Considered submission.

Perused the application which has been filed by applicant of this MA case who is the OP of CC-174/22 under section 38(8) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.  Also examine the written objection filed by the OP of this MA case.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant side of this MA case that the CC-174/22 is not maintainable on the ground that this District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case, the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case and this case is not maintainable in view of the development agreement as because there is an arbitration clause for settling the disputes in between the parties and the CC case has been filed by violating the said clause.

On the other hand the OP of this MA case who is the complainant of CC-174/22 pointed out that there is continuous cause of action and this court has the jurisdiction to try this case and this case is maintainable in spite of existence of the arbitration clause over this issue the OP referred the case of Bunga Daniel Babu Vs. M/s Sri Vasudeva Constructions and Ors of Hon’ble apex Court.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of above noted issues, this District Commission after going through the material of the case record of MA case no.50/23 and CC-174/22 finds that the complainant has filed the above noted CC case with the prayer for granting direction to the OPs to allot proper possession letter of the handed over flats and shop room to the complainant alongwith compensation ofRs.600000/- and litigation cost of Rs.100000/- which is crossing the pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Commission of Rs.5000000/-.  Thus it is crystal clear that this District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. 

Moreso as per development agreement there is an arbitration clause for settlement of the disputes in between the parties before the arbitrator.  It is crystal clear that the complainant without preferring the arbitration and without availing the arbitration clause has instituted the complaint case before this District Commission which is outrightly prematured.

All these factors are clearly reflecting that there are sufficient grounds for allowing this MA-50/23.

In the result, it is accordingly

                                                                        Ordered

That this MA case be and the same is allowed on contest.  It is held that the CC-174/22 is not maintainable as this District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

Let the complaint petition filed by complainant be handed over to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate Forum.   In the light of the observation made above this MA case is disposed of.