MEENU AGGARWAL Vs. JMD PROMOTERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(2.) 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.