BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.181  OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.989 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD

Between:

Smt T.Rekha W/o T.Uday Kumar
H.No.8-3-898/29/1, Nagarjuna Nagar
Hyderabad-73

                                                        Appellant/complainant

                A N D

1.    The Managing Director
Bhoomatha Real Estate & Developers
48-14-85, III & IV Floor, Bajaj Probiking
Rama Talkies Junction,  Vizag-530016

2.   T.Kiran Sankar
Marketing Executive
Bhoomatha Real Estate & Developers
and DGM Marketing, Sagar Cements
Moti Nagar, Hyderabad.

Respondents/opposite parties

F.A.No.182  OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.991 OF 2011  

Between:

 T.Uday Kumar S/o T.Sarveswara Rao
301, Sundar Sadan Apartments,
Sundar Nagar Colony, Near ESI
SR Nagar, Hyderabad

                                                        Appellant/complainant

                A N D

1.    The Managing Director
Bhoomatha Real Estate & Developers
48-14-85, III & IV Floor, Bajaj Probiking
Rama Talkies Junction,  Vizag-530016

2.   T.Kiran Sankar
Marketing Executive
Bhoomatha Real Estate & Developers
and DGM Marketing, Sagar Cements
Moti Nagar, Hyderabad.

Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              M/s  K.Parandhamachari

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s   C.Raghu (R1)

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                        &

                        SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

                        MONDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

                                   TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.             Appellants in both appeals the complainants.  The opposite parties are the same parties in both the appeals.  For the sake of convenience the parties are referred as they arrayed in the complaints.  The facts and circumstances of both the appeals being same, they are disposed of by common order.  F.A.No.181 of 2013 is taken as lead case. 

2.             The case of the appellant as seen from the averments of the complaint is that the appellant paid a sum of `7 lakhs on 23.8.2005 and `70,000/- 8.9.2005 to the respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 issued receipts dated 23.8.2005 and 8.9.2005 and the receipts were signed by the managing partner of the respondent no.1 company.  The appellant requested the respondents to execute sale deed in his favour and as there was no response thereto, the appellant addressed letter dated 20.8.2006 to the respondent no.1 with a request to issue allotment letter with plot number and extent of the land.  The respondent had not given any information.  The appellant addressed letters thereafter for which the respondent no.1 gave reply on 18.8.2011 and 28.8.2011 denying the correspondence made by the appellant.

3.             The respondent no.1 resisted the case contending that the respondent no.2 is not their marketing executive and they had no knowledge about the dealings between the appellant and the respondent no.2 and payment receipt issued by the respondent no.2 in company’s name.    The respondent no.1 came to know about the transaction between the appellant and the respondent no.2 only after receipt of letter dated 18.8.2011 addressed by the appellant to the respondent no.1.  The respondent no.1 addressed letter dated 28.8.2011 to the appellant informing that they had not received any amount from the appellant with regard to purchase of the plot.  The District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the appellant is residing at Vizag. 

4.             The respondent no.2 did not choose to contest the case.

5.             The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A18.  On behalf of the respondent no.1, its Managing Director filed his affidavit and did not choose to file any documents.

6.             The District Forum disposed of the  complaint observing that the appellant has no territorial jurisdiction to file the complaint before the District Forum-I, Hyderabad and observed that the appellant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate forum which has territorial jurisdiction.

7.             Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed the complaint contending that the respondent no.1 received the amount by way of cheque dated 23.8.2005 at Hyderabad towards sale consideration through the respondent no.2 and therefore a part of cause of action arose at Hyderabad and the District Forum Hyderabad has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

8.             The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from mis-appreciation of facts or law?

9.             The appellant has stated that she paid a sum of `7,70,000/-.  Exs.A1 and A2 are the receipts for `7 lakh and `70,000/- issued by the respondent no.1.  Copy of cheque for `7 lakhs dated 23.8.2005 would also support the contention of the appellant that she paid the amount to the respondent no.1.  However, the dispute centers around the place where the complaint has to be filed.  The appellant contends that she paid the amount to the respondent no.2 who is the agent of the respondent no.1 company whereas the respondent no.1 contends that the District Forum has no jurisdiction.  In this context the correspondence made by the appellant with the respondent no.1 would, to some extent settle the issue. 

10.            The appellant addressed letter dated 14.6.2007 to the respondent no.1 requesting for issuing for allotment letter and another letter dated 21.9.2008 was addressed to the respondent no.1 with the same request.  Thereafter, the appellant has sent another letter which is more a reminder and in the next letter i.e., letter dated 8.11.2010, the appellant reiterated the contents of the earlier letter that she paid a sum of `7,70,000/- and no allotment letter was issued to her.  Letter dated 18.8.2011 would also establish the payment of the amount by the appellant. 

11.            In the letter dated 15.9.2011, the appellant brought to the notice of the respondent no.1 that she paid the amount through the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 while the respondent no.2 was working with M/s Sagar Cement Limited in Vizag during the relevant period.  The letter reads as under:

                I have received your letter dated 28.8.2011.

I have paid the amount/cheque through Sri T.Kiran Shanker who was working with M/s Sagar Cement Ltd., in Vizag during that period.

I am a pan card holder and filing the Income Tax Returns regularly.

You have failed to furnish the details of plots allotted to me as requested in my letter dated 18.08.2011.

It is rather painful to note that you have denied my earlier correspondence with regard to allotment of plots.

Kindly intimate the details immediately to avoid further correspondent.

12.            The District forum held that it has no jurisdiction to try the matter in view of the transaction being taken place at Vizag.  The receipts were issued by the respondent no.1 at Vizag and the payment of the amount was also made at Vizag.  The appellant contends that cheque issued by her was realized at Hyderabad and she has the option to file complaint before the District Forum, Hyderabad or District Forum Vizag.    Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and it reads as under:

11.        Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. 

(2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)   the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)   any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)   the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 

13.            The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in “Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker” reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3087 and in “Barid B.Bhattacharya v. DCM Ltd., & Ors” reported in II (2012) CPJ 468 (NC) cannot help the case of the appellant .  The realization of the amount covered under cheque cannot by itself gives rise to cause of action or part of cause of action for the appellant to file complaint before the District Forum Hyderabad.  This Commission does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the District Forum that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. 

 14.           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in  “Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.,” reported in (2010) 1 SCC 135   held that the expression ‘branch office’  in Section 17(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act would mean  branch office  where cause of action has arisen but not each and every branch office  of opposite party  wherever it is situated.    It was  somewhat a  similar case where  insurance policy was taken at Ambala but the claim for compensation was made at Chandigarh contending that the respondent has a branch office at Chandigarh, hence complaint could be filed at Chandigarh.    The Apex Court observed that :

“The Supreme Court, further dealing the concept of Article 226(2) and relying on the decision of ONGC (1994 AIR SCW 3287), explained the concept of cause of action in para 17 at page 130 of the report and the relevant extracts wherefrom are excerpted below :

 “It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in  their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that  is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.”

15.            In the light of the ratio laid in the aforementioned decision,  the District  Forum at  Hyderabad has no jurisdiction  to  entertain the complaint.    

16.            In the result both appeals are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  There shall be no separate order as to costs. 

                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                            Dt.04.11.2013

కె.ఎం.కె.*