RAMESH CHOWDHARY Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed as Zimini order dated 8.12.2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint was disposed of by directing the complainant to get the Redressal of his grievances against the O.Ps. by filing a regular civil suit on the ground that the District Forum had got no jurisdiction to decide the complaint case as the service booth site No. 175, Sector 16, Panchkula was purchased from the original allottee Shri Bhim Sain Bansal, Sh. Mohinder Pal Bansal, Smt. Vidya Rani and Smt. Krishna Rani for commercial purpose.

(2.) THE short question before us in this appeal is whether the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum raises a question for hiring and availing service for commercial purpose and not covered by the explanation appended to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C.P. Act). At the very outset, it may be mentioned that the District Forum did not take into consideration the facts pleaded in the complaint case and while admitting the complaint vide order dated 6.10.2004, the complaint was admitted after hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant Shri P.K. Kukreja, Advocate.

(3.) SUB -section (4) of Section 12 of the C.P. Act provides 'Where a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with under Sub -section (3), the District Forum may proceed with the complaint in the manner provided under this Act; Provided that where a complaint has been admitted by the District Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other Court or Tribunal or any authority set up by or under any other law for the time being in force.'