The objection regarding jurisdiction should be raised before the consumer forum or Commission at the earliest possible was said the Supreme Court.
The State Commission had discussed the case in the matters of merits; such a technical objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction could not have been countenanced before the National Commission was held by the Supreme Court in the Case of In M/s Treaty Construction V. Ruby Tower Co-op HSG Society Limited
The State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the same was not urged before the State Commission and the matters was decided on the merits, the National Commission rejected the Contention of the appellant.
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, the bench in appeal observed
“The contention on the part of the appellants as regarded pecuniary jurisdiction has only been noted to be rejected. The National Commission has observed, and rightly so, that such a plea was not specifically raised before the state Commission at the earliest opportunity; and State Commission having already decided the matter on merits, such a technical objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction could not have been countenanced before the National Commission. We find no error in the National Commission rejecting this plea as being wholly untenable at given stage.”
There were many sale deeds executed between the Co-operative Housing Society during 1994-2002. Even though the payment was made for the apartments the builders failed to discharge their part of the contract. The interior work was incomplete they also failed to obtain the Completion Certification and the occupancy certification
The builders were ordered to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to the society. The compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs was set aside by the bench of the Supreme Court.