AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Perused the record.
The previous daily Orders dated 25.06.2018, 04.09.2018, 07.12.2018 and 28.08.2019 read as below:
25.06.2018
Heard learned counsel for the complainant.
There is a question of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Issue notice of admission only to the opposite parties returnable on 4.9.2018.
04.09.2018
List the matter for arguments on admission on 07-12-2018 on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.
07.12.2018
This case was listed on the short point of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the complainant may file case-laws on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with copies to the opposite parties within a period of six weeks.
List on 28.08.2019 to argue on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
In the meanwhile, if the complainant in person so wishes, he may file an application to rationalize his prayer to fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission and file an application for early hearing and / or if he so wishes he may be present in person with his counsel on the next date of hearing.
Let a copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the complainant in person within ten days.
28.08.2019
We would like to hear the matter at length. In the context of the Order dated 07.12.2018, we would also request the complainant to be present in person to explain the prayer clause in her complaint.
List on 31.10.2019 for further hearing.
Let a copy of this Order be sent to the complainant by the Registry within seven days.
In the prayer clause, the complainant has prayed for the following relief:
(I) Total amount paid by the complainant towards the cost of the flat to the opposite party company: Rs. 31,35,086/-
(II) Interest @ 18% p.a.: Rs. 34,79,945/-
(III) Rentals: Rs. 6,10,000/-
(IV) Compensation for mental agony:Rs. 50,00,000/-
(V) Cost of litigation:As deemed fit.
Total claim : Rs.1,22,70,031/-
The complainant in person submits that she would like to amend the complaint and inter alia also rationalize the prayer clause therein and bring the total claim within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission i.e. within Rs. 1 crore.
The complainant is permitted to file an amended complaint and to inter alia alsorationalize the prayer clause therein and to file the amended complaint before the State Commission within 6 weeks from today.
Learned counsel present for the opposite parties builder co. has no objection.
The complainant in person further submits that due to acute personal difficulty (which she elaborated upon before the bench), she wants the case to be transferred to the State Commission at Delhi.
In exercise of the power vested under section 22B of the Act 1986, considering the afore submission of the complainant in person, and having regard to her acute personal difficulty, and in the interest of justice, we transfer this case to the State Commission at Delhi.
Learned counsel present for the opposite parties builder co. has no objection.
Both sides are directed to appear before the State Commission at Delhi on 17.12.2019.
The State Commission at Delhi is requested to afford opportunity under section 13 of the Act 1986 to the opposite parties builder co. to file their written version to the amended complaint, and to adjudicate the case on merit as per the law.
Further, considering that about 1 ½ years have been taken in proceedings before this Commission on the preliminary question of pecuniary jurisdiction, the State Commission at Delhi is requested to kindly decide this case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within nine months from the date of putting in appearance by the parties before it i.e. 17.12.2019.
Let a copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the State Commission at Delhi within 7 days.
So disposed.
'Dasti', in addition, to both sides.