S.K.M. REFCON PVT. LTD. & ANR vs SHALINI NEHRU

Appeal No.611 of 2016, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer and one of its Directors'', is directed against the order dated 28.03.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission"), in CC No.102 of 2014. By the said order, the State Commission has directed ex parte proceedings against the Appellants, who happened to be the Opposite Parties in the Complaint.

During the pendency of the said Appeal, First Appeal No.967 of 2016 has been filed by the Complainant, against a subsequent order dated 09.06.2016, passed by the State Commission dismissing the Complaint itself, on the ground that it does not have Pecuniary Jurisdiction to deal with the Complaint. The short ground on which the State Commission has arrived at the afore-noted conclusion is that the Complainant has failed to bring on record any document to show that she had booked a flat in a project located in the State of Haryana, particularly in Sector 95, Gurgaon, Haryana. According to the State Commission, the Provisional Registration Receipt (Exhibit C-1) whereby the Complainant had paid to the Opposite Parties a sum of 36,36,202/- refers to an apartment in NCR and not in any project, falling within its Territorial Jurisdiction.

Since both the orders, impugned in these Appeals arise out of two decisions by the State Commission in the same Complaint, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties waives service of notice in FA 937 of 2016. Accordingly, I propose to dispose of both these Appeals by this common order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Regard being had to the averments made in the Appeal (FA/611/2015) filed by the Opposite Parties to the effect that the subject deposit was made by the Complainant in respect of a flat, to be constructed under a joint Development Agreement with one Pal Infrastructures, Sector 95, Gurgaon, I have no hesitation in holding that the Haryana State Commission has the jurisdiction to deal with the Complaint. I am convinced that the afore-noted confusion on the question of Territorial Jurisdiction would not have arisen, had the Opposite Parties availed of the opportunity to file their

Written Versions. Their casual attitude towards the case has resulted in unwarranted harassment to the Complainant as also wastage of precious judicial time.

Insofar as the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Parties is concerned, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, who is present in person, states, on instructions, that in order to avoid further delay in the adjudication of the Complaint, the Complainant does not have any objection if the order, directing ex parte proceedings against the Opposite Parties is set aside and they are granted reasonable time to file their Written Versions.

In view of the above, both the Appeals are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside and the Complaint (CC No.102/2014) is restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Opposite Parties are granted four weeks'' time from today to file their Written Versions, subject to their paying to the Complainant a further sum of 15,000/- as costs, in addition to the amount already directed to be paid by this Commission as travel and allied expenses. The said amounts shall be paid to the Complainant before the State Commission. Parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.10.2016 for further proceedings.

Since the Complaint was filed in the year 2014, the State Commission shall try to dispose it of as expeditiously as practicable.

Both the Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.