State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Munish Aggarwal. & Anr. vs M/S Ansal Buildwell Ltd. & Anr. on 19 August, 2019
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
Consumer Complaint No.: 16/2017
Date of Presentation: 16.11.2017
Date of Order : 19.08.2019
.......................................................................................
Munish Aggarwal son of Shri Krishan Gopal House No.1199
Sector-7 Panchkula-13409 (Haryana).
....Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd. through its Managing Director
Registered Office 118 Upper First Floor Prakash Deep
Building-7 Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001.
2. M/s Pacific Construction and Management a partnership firm
through Mr. Vikas Madan & Mr. Pankaj Madan R/o D-64 First
Floor Vikas Marg Shakarpur Delhi-110092.
....Opposite parties.
...............................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana (R) President.
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For Complainant : Mr. Rakesh Manta Advocate. For Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Y. Paul Advocate.
For Opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte.
....................................................................................... Justice P.S. Rana (R) President ORDER ON ORIGINAL PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF STATE COMMISSION:______________________________________________
1. Present order is passed in view of notification No.54 dated 09.08.2019 issued by Central Government of India wherein Consumer Protection Act 1986 stood repealed and new Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into operation w.e.f. 09.08.2019.
1Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes Munish Aggarwal Versus M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd. & Anr.
Consumer Complaint No.16/2017
2. New Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into operation w.e.f. 09.08.2019 wherein original pecuniary jurisdiction of learned District Consumer Commission has been enhanced from Rs.20.00 lacs (Twenty lacs) to Rs.1.00 Crore (One Crore). Relief sought in the present consumer complaint is not exceeding Rs.1.00 Crore (One Crore). State Commission has no original pecuniary jurisdiction to dispose of consumer complaint wherein relief sought is not exceeding Rs.1.00 Crore (One Crore).
3. It is held that original pecuniary jurisdiction is only rule of procedure and has effect on pending as well as future matters in view of ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 1976 SC 2610 (Three Judges Bench) titled K.E. Chako Versus Provident Investment Company. It is held that provision of section 6 of General Clause Act 1897 will not be operative upon procedural pecuniary change effected by way of constitutional amendment in view of ruling cited supra.
4. In view of above stated facts present original consumer complaint No.16 of 2017 is transferred to learned District Consumer Commission Kullu (H.P.) for disposal in accordance with laws and proved facts. Be listed before learned District Consumer Commission Kullu (H.P.) on 24.10.2019. Entire original record of present consumer 2 Munish Aggarwal Versus M/s Ansal Buildwell Ltd. & Anr.
Consumer Complaint No.16/2017 complaint No.16 of 2017 be sent to learned District Consumer Commission Kullu (H.P.) forthwith. Learned District Consumer Commission will issue notices to learned Advocates engaged by the parties. In addition learned District Consumer Commission will also issue notices to parties by way of registered post. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties free of costs forthwith. Certified copy of order will be retained in office for record. Ordered accordingly.
Justice P.S. Rana (R)
President
19.08.2019 Sunita Sharma
Manoj Member
3