MEERA CHAUDHARY Vs. M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has been called out the second time. Still, no one appears for the Respondent.

(2.) Though, on the last date of hearing, the Respondent was represented by an Advocate, appearing for Mr. V.M. Bhardwaj, Advocate, but none of the Counsel has filed vakalatnama in his favour. Accordingly, I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Complainant.

(3.) Challenge in this Appeal, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 10.08.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 609 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that since the Complainant is a resident of Gurugram, Haryana; she must be having account in Gurugram; and she has also failed to produce copy of the cheques issued towards the cost of the flat, as well as the statement of her bank account, the Delhi State Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.