DILIP DAMODAR SOPARKAR Vs. NETWORK CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Priyanka Sinha i/b Shah and Sanghi for O. P. applies for time for filing written statement. However, it is noticed that in the process served by this Commission time stipulated for the same was 13.2.2003. So it is nearly more than 13 months were available to the O. P. for filing the written statement, but same has not been done. Our attention has been drawn to the reliefs claimed and in particular page No.42-A, which mentions particulars of claim of the complainant being the subject matter of the complaint herein. Complaint has been filed claiming sum of Rs.1,14,904/- being the excess amount recovered by the O. P. Complainant has claimed damages and compensation respectively for Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, has made up the claim which is above Rs.5 lakhs.

(2.) However, as held by the National Commission in the cases of Shahbad Co-operative Sugar Mills V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2003 2 CPJ 81 and in the case of Vijay Shankar V/s. Mandeep Singh and Ors., 2003 2 CPJ 170 and as recently held by us in the group of complaints being Complaint Nos.233, 234 and 235/2003 in the case of Mr. Ramesh Unhavane and Ors. V/s. M/s. Rapid Developers and Ors. , decided on 20th November 2003, the benefits claimed either by way of interest or compensation not to be added for the purpose of determination of the valuation of the subject matter of the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) In view thereof, we find that the claim in the complaint is not maintainable in view of valuation of subject matter being less than pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.