KUSH SAMA Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act was instituted by the respondents / complainants before the concerned State Commission against the petitioner company. The learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 227 of 2017 / opposite party states that without admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party which filed a written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint was time barred and that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(2.) When the complaint came up for hearing before the State Commission on 17.11.2016, the opposite party relying the decision rendered by Three-Members Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 97 of 2016 dated 07.10.2016 submitted that the State Commission did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thereupon, the State Commission sent the complaint to this Commission for taking further necessary action and directed the parties to appear before this Commission on 11.01.2017.

(3.) In terms of the order of the State Commission dated 17.11.2016, the consumer complaint filed by the respondents in FA/227/2017 has been registered as CC No. 59 of 2017.