Haryana

StateCommission

RP/48/2019

BABLI - Complainant(s)

Versus

REKHA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

ABHISHEK JINDAL

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Revision Petition No.48  of 2019

 Date of Institution:20.05.2019

  Date  of  Decision:26.04.2023

 

Babli W/o Sh.Anil Kumar, R/o H.No. 6, Happy Homes, Omaxe city, Sector-15, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

Rekha Devi  W/o Sh.Mukesh Jangra, R/o Second Floor, Flat No.18, Happy homes, Omaxe City, Sector-15, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

 

                   

Present:-    Mr.Abimanau Batra proxy counsel for Mr.Abhishek Jindal Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Alakh Bhatt proxy counsel for Mr.Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  30.04.2019 in Consumer Complaint No.05 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhajjar vide which the application filed by opposite party No.1 under section 11 read with section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and order 7 Rule 1 of CPC seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction stood disposed of.

2.      The argument were advanced by Mr.Abimanau Batra proxy counsel for Mr.Abhishek Jindal Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Alakh Bhatt proxy counsel for Mr.Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the respondent. With their kind assistance the original file including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of revisionist has also been properly perused and examined.

3.      While unfolding the arguments it was argued by Mr.Abhimanau Batra proxy counsel for Mr.Abhishek Jindal, Advocate for the revisionist that  complainant had purchased a residential stilts+3, Second Floor on Plot No.18, Sector-15 situated at Happy Homes, Omaxe city, Vill. Kassar & Sankhol, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Sector 15, Distt. Jhajjar measuring super area 1650.00 sq. ft. constructed on approx.. 261.33 sq. yards from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.49,00,000/-.   Further Mr. Batra argued that he filed application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, but the learned District Commission has wrongly disposed of application  vide order dated 30.04.2019. As per Section 11 of the Act “The District Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs]”.  In the present case the value of the purchased floor when added to the compensation claimed exceeds Rs.20 Lakhs, hence the bar prescribed under section 11 (1) of the Act would operate. The learned District Commission, Jhajjar has illegally usurped/encroached upon the jurisdiction of the State Commission, which is the competent forum to deal with the cases where the amount of goods or services and the compensation claimed exceeds Rs.20/- lacs but does not exceed Rs.1 crore.     Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that revision petition be allowed and order dated 30.04.2019 be set aside.

4.      Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that  as per the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in Amrish Kumar Shukla and 21 others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. In consumer case No.97 of 2016, the learned District Commission  has power to entertain and decide the complaint.

5.       The opposite party No.1-petitioner has filed this revision petition on 20.05.2019 and as per The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which was effective from 20.07.2020.  The District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/- lacs. The District Commission have power to decide the matter upto Rs.50,00,000/-. Since the complainant have purchased this plot of Rs.49,00,000/- from the opposite party No.1. the learned District Commission have power to decide the complaint on merits.

6.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that  as per the new Act, the District Commission have power to decide the matter on merits, so in these circumstances, present revision petition is dismissed.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Commission, Jhajjar.

 

 

26th April, 2023                                                                   S. P. Sood                                                                                                                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K  (Pvt. Secy.)