Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/131/2018

Ramesh Kumar s/o Shri Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Prime City Limited Through Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupender Pareek

12 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 131 /2018

 

Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramkumar through M/s. Daily Save c/o Ramesh Trading Co., Ambedkar Chowk, Ganganagar Road, Hanumangarh Raj.

Vs.

Sahara Prime City Ltd., (Sahara City Homes) through Regional Manager/Director Opp.Radha Swami Satsang Vyas, Bilwa, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 12.9.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Bhupendra Pareek counsel for complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This complaint is filed on 21.8.2018 with the contention

2

 

that he purchased a flat with the non-applicants. The total sale price was Rs. 27,07,000/-. Till 5.5.2010 he paid the amount of Rs.8,88,163/-. Till August 2012 the possession of the property was to be handed over to the complainant but still flat is not complete. Hence a refund of Rs.8,88,163/- alongwith interest was asked and so also the compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

 

It is admitted fact on the part of the complainant that he paid only Rs. 8,88,163/- to the non-applicants and relief of refund of the same is only asked. When the disputed amount is only Rs. 8,88,163/- the State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Compensation of Rs.23 lakhs alongwith cost of proceedings of Rs. 1 lakh were asked which seems to be inflated claim and reliance could be placed on IV (2014) CPJ 111 (NC) Sushil Gupta Vs. Master Vintage International where the National Commission has held as under:

 

3

 

 

“Thus, in our considered view, the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with mala fide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned. In the instant case, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only rupees eighteen lakh plus but he has added disproportionate demand of compensation of Rs.2,88,55,000/- approximately as compensation to bring this case with the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The above act of the complainant obviously is mala fide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction.”

 

 

In view of the above the complaint is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and highly inflated claim has been lodged just to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, complaint is returned with the direction to submit it within the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm