SANJAY KUMAR BARANWAL Vs. SELENE CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of RA/196/2016 filed on behalf of the complainants.

(2.) Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the review application are that Sanjay Kumar Baranwal and his wife Bhawna Kumari, Chander Prabha and her son Arun Choudhary and Smt. Anuradha Lal had entered into a builder buyer agreement with the opposite party. Being aggrieved of delay in delivery of possession, increase in super area, change in basic cost of the flat etc., the above said set of complainants filed a joint complaint in this Commission. No application seeking permission under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pursue the joint complaint was filed. However, a prayer in this regard was made in prayer clause A. The predecessor Bench without disposing the plea under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, issued notice to the opposite party and proceeded with the complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, complainant Chander Prabha took possession of the subject flat booked by her. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, vide proceedings dated 19.5.2016 the predecessor Bench took the view that since Chander Prabha had already taken possession of the flat, the cause of action in her favour was no more similar to the cause of action in favour of the other set of complainants. Accordingly, it was observed that even if the cases of other set of complainants are taken together, their claim was less than Rs.1 crore as such it was held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The complaint was accordingly rejected and complainants were given liberty to approach the State Commission.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of record because this Commission while passing order dated 19.5.2016 failed to appreciate that complainant Chander Prabha though had received the possession of the flat, had not withdrawn her claim and therefore the National Commission was wrong in excluding her claim for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. We find some force in this contention. Be that as it may, this joint complaint has been filed by more than one complainants, therefore, Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act comes into play which reads as under: -