MEENU AGGARWAL vs Jmd Promoters Ltd

CHALLENGE in these proceedings is to the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 414 / 2011. The appeal was filed by the complainant against the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon by which order the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the said District Forum holding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the claim of the complainant in the claim having been valued at Rs. 28,59,375. A plea was raised before the State Commission to entertain the complaint in its original jurisdiction but even that request of the complainant was declined by the State Commission giving the following reasons: "Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order while dismissing the complaint as the pecuniary jurisdiction vested with the District Consumer Forum is to hear the claims upto Rs. 20 lacs whereas in the instant complaint, complainant ''s claim is with respect to a flat, valuing Rs. 28,59,375 as on 1.4.2006i.e. at the time of executing agreement between the parties. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant sought permission to withdraw the complaint with permission to file the same before the State Commission. We are not inclined to accept this request for the reasons that if we grant permission to complainant to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file it before the State Commission, in that eventuality it would amount as if this Commission is interested to help the claimant to seek remedy before us which may prejudice the case of the opposite parties. Therefore, the permission sought for on behalf of the appellant-complainant is declined. We, therefore, maintain the opinion expressed by the District Forum while dismissing the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, we allow the complainant to seek his remedy before the Civil Court or any other competent Court which has jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the complainant Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit, in limine. "

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant and have considered his submissions but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent, who remained unrepresented on record despite notice which having been issued as far back as on 23.11.2011 and not received back unserved within thirty days. Therefore, there is presumption of service of notice on the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the settled legal position on the subject. We find force in this contention. In our view, both the Fora below have gravely erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction. We say so because once the District Forum having regard the valuation of the claim had come to the conclusion that the valuation of the claim exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, the ideal/proper course for the District Forum was to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation it before the Fora having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. Instead of doing so, the District Forum dismissed the complaint due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the competent forum. The State Commission also did not correct the said error of jurisdiction. Despite a prayer having been made to the State Commission, it declined to entertain the complaint in its original jurisdiction on a parity of reason which is not easy to understand, least to approve. The approach adopted by the Fora below, has resulted into miscarriage of justice as the complainant has been left high and try and has been relegated to approach the civil Court for redressal of his grievance. We do not understand why a complainant, who is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and had raised a consumer dispute should be relegated to the Civil Court. In our view the orders passed by the Fora below are legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. Complainant is granted four weeks '' time to file the complaint before the State Commission in its original jurisdiction. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.