National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sanjay Kumar Baranwal & 2 Ors. vs Selene Constructions Ltd. on 19 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 914 OF 2015 1. SANJAY KUMAR BARANWAL & 2 ORS. F001, CHITRAKOOT APARTMENT,
SECTOR-22, PLOT NO. 9, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 2. SMT. CHANDER PRABHA H-208/13, ROSHANPURA,
RAMLILA GROUND, GURGAON 3. SMT. ANURADHA LAL TP-68, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110088 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SELENE CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. M-62&63, FIRST FLOOR, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate
Dated : 19 May 2016 ORDER
1.Counsel for the parties present. All the four cheques handed over to the complainants' counsel and one to the Court Master. Counsel for the opposite parties submits that she has also deposited the costs of Rs.10,000/- as ordered on 05-05-2016. She submits that the entire costs of Rs.1,10,000/- has been deposited. Written statement filed is taken on the record. Same will be read in evidence. Copy of the written statement not furnished to the complainant. Same be furnished within three days otherwise the written statement will not be read in evidence. That should be under the signature of the complainants' counsel.
2. The opposite parties have filed an application under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it is objected that this case is not maintainable under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this context, our attention has been invited towards the fact that Mrs. Chandra Prabha and Mr. Arun Choudhary who have been arrayed as complainant No.2 have already got the possession of the premises in dispute on 24-11-2015. However, this complaint was filed on 19-08-2015. They got the possession during the pendency of this case. This is a subsequent event. There lies no rub in taking note of the subsequent event.
3. Since they have got the possession, therefore, their cause of action differs from other two complainants, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baranwal and Ms. Anuradha Lal. Mrs. Chandra Prabha and Mr. Arun Chaudhary may have got other grouses but the same cannot be joined with this complaint. If joined together, their claim (complainants Nos.1 and 3) also does not come to Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Consequently, we have no pecuniary jurisdiction in this case. The case of the complainants is, therefore, dismissed. However, they/all of them are given liberty to approach the State Commission and they will have to file separate complaints. However, complainants Nos.1 and 3 may separately or jointly file the complaint as per law.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER