Order No. 6 Dated: 12.11.2024
Today is fixed for hearing on admissibility of the Consumer Complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. Heard him.
On perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the complainant entered into a Builder Agreement dated 09.09.2010 with the OP-1 as the Co-Developers along with OP-2 Orbit Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Vendor/Developer) for the purchase of Unit (Flat) No. 14B in the said project stood to be Rs.1,58,72,500/- for the said unit and the complainant has resolved to approach the Hon’ble SCDRC against the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP-1 and on making payment of full consideration amount i.e. Rs.1,58,72,500/- by 20.08.2014 the OP-2 issued possession letter in favour of the complainant. It is also in the complaint petition that the OP-1 induced the complainant to part with an additional sum of Rs.7,68,625/- and unless the aforesaid money is paid the OP will not execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant. Prayer of the complainant is for a direction to the OPs to pay the entire Rs.7,68,625/- along with interest @1.25% per month and other prayers.
On closed scrutiny of the complaint petition, it has been stated by the complainant that the total consideration paid for the subject property was Rs.1,58,72,500/- and Rs.7,68,625/- which do not exceed Rs.2 crore and this Commission has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
On the above, the complainant has not mentioned whether any consumer compliant has been filed before the Hon’ble SCDRC and order / judgment was passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC in this matter or not? This Commission has limit of pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.50,00,000/- considering the value of goods or service paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-.
On the whole we are of the view that the complaint petition itself is a labyrinth one and as the consideration amount of the flat in question exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Consumer Complaint for further proceedings and the same is rejected accordingly.
The MA/437/2024 stands rejected.
