Haryana

StateCommission

TA/04/2016

Kunta Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suncity Projects Private Limited through its Directors - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                     

                                                Transfer Application No  :    04 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:                           09.11.2016

                                                Date of Decision :                 08.12.2016

 

1.      Kunta Kohli wife of late Sh. Subhash Chander Kohli, resident of House No.883, Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

2.      Mr. Puneet Kohli son of late Sh. Subhash Chander Kohli, resident of House No.883, Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                      Applicants-Complainants

 

Versus

 

Suncity Projects Private Limited through its Directors

 

Registered Office: Suncity Projects Private Limited, LGF-10, Vasant Square, Plot A, Sector B, Pocket V, Community Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -110070

Branch Office : Suncity Business Tower, Second Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

Branch Office (Local): Suncity Parikrama Group Housing Project, GH, Sector 20, Panchkula-134112, Haryana.

Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Present:     Ms. Bhavna Joshi, Advocate for the applicants-complainants

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

 

          Present application has been filed by Kunta Kohli and her son Puneet Kohli-complainants with the submission that they filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula against Suncity Projects Private Limited with the allegations of deficiency in service.  The pecuniary jurisdiction of the said complaint is Rs.56,62,950/- being value of the flat besides Rs.6,10,500/- as compensation from 19.08.2013 till 19.05.2016 as per clause 25 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement besides other relief.  The said complaint is pending before District Consumer Forum, Panchkula.

2.      Learned counsel appearing for the applicants-complainants submitted that Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act confers jurisdiction upon the State Commission to exercise its revisional jurisdictional, therefore, the State Commission should transfer the original complaint pending before the District Forum to State Commission and dispose it of.

3.      Learned counsel has relied upon State of U.P and Others Versus All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association, Civil Appeal No.2740 of 2007, Supreme Court.

4.      At the outset, the judgment relied upon only pertains to administrative control under Section 24B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

5.      Section 11 lays down pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and Section 17 lays down pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.  Section 11 (1) and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act is reproduced as under:-

          “11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum

          (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees five lakhs].”

          “17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission

          Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

          (a) to entertain-

          (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees 1[five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs;] and”

 When the Act lays down pecuniary jurisdiction of different Foras, Section 17(1) (b) i.e. Revisional Jurisdiction or Section 24B conferring power of administrative control cannot be used to transfer the original complaint pending before District Forum to the Board of State Commission.  If the complainants chose to file complaint before the District Forum knowing fully well that District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the consequences and results of filing complaint flowing from the provisions of the Act has to follow.  Transfer application is not remedy, therefore, it being misconceived, is dismissed.   

 

Announced 08.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK