State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Kumar Khanna vs M/S Tdi Infratech Ltd. on 13 January, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision:13.01.2016 Complaint No.1196/2015 In the matter of: Raj Kumar Khanna, R/o 166, Aravali Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. ........Complainant Versus M/s. TDI Infratech Ltd., 10, Bhagat Shaheed, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001. ........Opp. Parte CORAM O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) S. C. Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) The interesting feature of this case is that complainant paid the amount of Rs.3,25,404/- as penalty, Rs.50,000/- in respect of space for car parking and Rs.5,315/- as interest. He took the possession of the flat booked by him. After that he has woken up to raise dispute and rush to the Consumer Court.
Another worth noticing fact is that complainant has sought payment of Rs.20 lacs for mental torture and agony for excess charge of Rs.3,80,315/-. The compensation sought for is highly disproportionate to the amount allegedly paid due to illegal demand of the OP. What is the basis of arriving at the said figure of compensation, is not clear. It appears that claim has been raised only for invoking the jurisdiction of State Commission.
It was held by National Commission in FA-95/07 titled Anil K. Jain and Ors. Vs. DDA decided on 22.02.2007 that exaggerated value for pecuniary jurisdiction can be checked.
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed in limini. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
.
(O.P. Gupta) Member (Judicial) (S. C. Jain) Member