Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/97/2020

Mukund Mimani - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.N.G. Real Estate Pvt/ Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kapil Totla

10 Sep 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT CASE NO:97/2020

10.9.2021

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh -Member

 

Mr. Kapil Totla learned counsel for the complainant

Mr.Ankit Agarwal learned counsel for Mr. Rajesh Maharshi counsel for the non-applicants

 

Learned counsel for the complainant Mr.Kapil Totla filed reply to the application dated 17.3.2021 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with sec. 47 (1) C.P.Act,2019. Copy of reply was supplied to non-applicants/complainants.

 

Heard Mr.Ankit Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Maharshi counsel for non-applicant and Mr.Kapil Totla learned counsel for the complainant on admission.

 

Mr.Agarwal submits that in complaint the complainant pleaded that the actual transaction of parties is Rs. 60,41,326/- which is less than Rs. 1 crore therefore, according to sec. 47 (1) of C.P.Act,2019 the pecuniary jurisdiction falls under District Commission as the actual transaction is less than Rs. 1 crore therefore, the complaint may be rejected for want of jurisdiction.

 

2

Per contra Mr.Kapil Totla learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant submitted that since the relief sought in the complaint is more than Rs. 1 crore therefore, jurisdiction vests in this Commission. In alternate he submits that complaint may be transferred to District Commission.

We have considered the submissions made at Bar.

Sec. 47 of the C.P.Act, 2019 reads as under:

“Jurisdiction of State Commission (1) 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 paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and

(b)...............”

3

From the perusal of aforesaid provision it is clear that the jurisdiction can be determined only on the value of goods or consideration of service paid. Here admittedly the amount paid by the complainant is less than Rs. 1 crore therefore, jurisdiction vests in District Commission.

So far as transfer of complaint is concerned. Since there is no provision in the C.P.Act, 2019 therefore, the complaint can be returned only.

Accordingly, the application is partly allowed. It is directed that complaint be returned to complainant for filing before the District Commission having jurisdiction. The original complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Member President