State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Munira H.Vasanwala vs Sainath Estate Pvt.Ltd.Through ... on 21 September, 2018
CC/18/75 1/4
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/18/75
Mrs.Munira Huseni Vasanwala,
Residing at: Pipewala Building,
B/Block, Flat No.50, 5th Floor,
Shahid Bhagatsing Road, Colaba,
Mumbai 400 005. ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
Admn. Office: 1-8-333 and 334,
Near HUDA Office,
Opposite Begumpet Police Line,
Secunderabad 3.
2. Mr.Uday Charan,
Director of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
Admn. Office: 1-8-333 and 334,
Near HUDA Office,
Opposite Begumpet Police Line,
Secunderabad 3.
3. Mr.Premsagar,
Chairman of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
Admn. Office: 1-8-333 and 334,
Near HUDA Office,
Opposite Begumpet Police Line, .........Opponent(s)
Secunderabad 3.
4. Mr.Tiwari,
Manager of Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.,
Admn. Office: 1-8-333 and 334,
Near HUDA Office,
Opposite Begumpet Police Line,
Secunderabad 3.
5. Adnan Shakir,
Aurus, 2nd floor,
S. Champsi Marg, Opp. Fazalani Lacademic,
Behind J.J. Hospital, Mazgaon,
Mumbai 400 009.
CC/18/75 2/4
BEFORE:
Mr.D.R. Shirasao, Presiding Judicial Member
Dr.S.K. Kakade, Member
For the Advocate Mr.Baliram Kamble.
Complainant:
For the Advocate Mr.Sandeep Kothari and Ms.Sangita Bafna
Opponents: for opponent nos.1 to 4
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR JURISDICTION
Per Hon'ble Mr.D.R. Shirasao - Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) Applicant/complainant has filed an application for granting permission to file complaint before this Commission.
(2) Heard Ld.Advocate appearing for applicant/complainant. He has submitted that complainant has booked Flat with Opponent nos.1 to 4 and deposited amount of Rs.13,27,375/- with them through opponent no.5 who is resident of Mumbai. The flat booked which is subject matter of the complaint is situated at Secunderabad. As opponent nos.1 to 4 have not given possession of flat to complainant, complainant has filed this complaint against opponent nos.1 to 4. As opponent nos.1 to 4 are from Secunderabad and the flat which is subject matter of the complaint is also situated at Secunderabad complainant has filed this application for allowing complainant to file this complaint in this Commission as complainant is resident of Mumbai. He has submitted that complainant had sent amount of booked flat from Mumbai and hence, this Commission has jurisdiction.
(3) Heard learned advocate appearing for opponents. He submitted that opponent nos.1 to 4 have no connection with opponent no.5. All the CC/18/75 3/4 documents filed on record in respect of booking of flat are given by opponnetnos.1 to 4 from Secunderabad. The flat which is subject matter of the complaint is also situated at Secunderabad and hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, application filed by complainant in that respect cannot be entertained. For that purpose he relied on order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.108 of 2018 on 16th March, 2018 in the matter of Girish Ahuja V/s. M/s. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt.Ltd. In this ruling it has been observed that "when the case is relating to the immovable property the jurisdiction lies with the District Forum within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the property is located."
(4) On perusal of record it has become clear that complainant has booked flat with opponent nos.1 to 4 situated at Secunderabad. The office of opponent nos.1 to 4 is also situated at Secunderabad. It is the contention of complainant that he had sent amount of Rs.13,27,000/- to opponent nos.1 to 4 at Secunderabad. There is no document on record to show that complainant had paid booking amount to opponent no.5 and opponent no.5 is the Agent of opponent nos.1 to 4. Under such circumstances, the flat which is subject matter of complaint is situated at Secunderabad and opponent nos.1 to 4 are also residing at Secunderabad and complainant has not produced on record any document to show that he has paid booking amount to opponent nos.1 to 4 to Mumbai. In view of this judgment relied on by the opponent as the matter is concerned with the immoveable property the District Forum at Secunderabad only will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint the application filed by the complainant is hereby rejected and CC/18/75 4/4 complaint is returned back to the complainant for filing the same before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to decide the same. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Application filed by complainant is hereby rejected.
(ii) In view of the same the complaint is returned back to the complainant for filing the same before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction.
(iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 21st September, 2018.
[D.R. Shirasao] Presiding Judicial Member [Dr.S.K. Kakade] Member ep