BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.462 of 2014

Date of Instt. 30.12.2014

Date of Decision : 08.09.2016

Karan Sharma son of Balram Kumar Sharma Advocate, R/o House No.117, Tower Enclave, Phase-II, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Amrinder Singh Gandhi Prop.of Austral Asia situated at Quiet Office No.7, Second Floor, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

2.Austral Asia through its Proprietor Amrinder Singh Gandhi Prop.of Austral Asia situated at Quiet Office No.7, Second Floor, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Kashyap Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.RK Bhalla Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant approached Ops for immigration to Australia on permanent resident visa in August 2009 and deposited Rs.5000/- with the OP bank. On 24.8.2009, Retainer Agreement Ex.C2 was executed between the parties i.e. the complainant and the opposite party which was signed by both the parties after admitting its contents as correct and the complainant deposited the amount with the OP towards professional fee Rs.10,000/- and other requisite fee as per the agreement between the parties and the complainant handed over all the relevant documents to the OP alongwith application but the OP failed to get visa for immigration to Australia for the complainant nor returned the amount which the complainant had deposited with OP i.e. Rs.2,28,680/-.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the Ops who appeared through counsel but instead of filing written version to the complaint, the counsel for the Ops filed application for dismissal of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Copy of this application was given to the complainant who filed reply opposing this application that after availing so many opportunities the OP did not file written version, rather they filed the present application at a belated stage. Further, the complainant has deposited cash payment in the bank account of the OP through bank at Jalandhar. So, cause of action accrued to the complainant at Jalandhar.

3. We have heard the counsels for the parties and have minutely gone through the record.

4. Particularly, the agreement entered into between the parties, copy of which is Ex.C2. This agreement is the basis of the dispute between the parties. This agreement was executed between the parties at Chandigarh and in this agreement, there is clause No.11 in which it has been categorically agreed by both the parties that all disputes under this agreement are subject to Chandigarh jurisdiction only. So, it stands fully proved on record that both the parties have agreed that any dispute arose under this agreement is subject to Chandigarh jurisdiction only.

5. Apart from this, the OP has its office only at Chandigarh and there is not even a branch office at Jalandhar. The complainant executed the aforesaid agreement Ex.C2 which has been produced and proved by the complainant himself, was also executed at Chandigarh. All the payments under this agreement have been made by complainant to the OP at Chandigarh as there is not even bank account of the OP at Jalandhar. So, it stands fully proved on record that this Forum at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

6. Resultantly, the present complaint is not maintainable here. So it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate Forum/Court having territorial jurisdiction. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

08.09.2016 Member President