MUNEESH MALHOTRA Vs. ERA LAND MARKS (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scheme of Consumer Protection Act provides for the hierarchy of Consumer Foras, namely, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Act has specifically demarcated the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras at aforesaid three levels to entertain the original consumer complaint. Sec. 11 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint wherein the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lacs. Sec. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act provides that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lacs but does not exceed rupees one crore. Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Act provides that National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods or service and compensation, if any, exceeds rupees one crore.

(2.) Recently we have experienced a trend where the complainants with a view to short circuit the system and defeat the hierarchy of the system, file the consumer complaints with inflated claims with a view to bring the cases within the jurisdiction of National Commission. This practice needs to be curbed out because it encourages forum shopping and also tend to short circuit the procedure for disposal of complaint. The instant complaint is also an example where the complainant has filed the complaint with an inflated claim with a view to directly file the consumer complaint in the National Commission against the spirit and object of the Act.

(3.) Muneesh Malhotra, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint against the opposite party M/s. Era Land Marks (India) Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of a flat booked by the complainant in the project undertaken by the opposite party. The complainant has sought following reliefs: