Haryana

StateCommission

CC/173/2017

BIRINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.NAGRA

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No: 173 of 2017

Date of Institution: 24.03.2017

Date of Order: 02.02.2018

 

Birinder Pal Singh son of late Sh. Gurdev Singh, Resident of House No.1418, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      Manager Ansal Housing & Constructions Limited, S.C.O. 34 Sawastik Vihar, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.      Shri Deepak Ansal, Managing Director, Ansal Housing & Constructions Limited, 2^nd Floor GNG Tower, Building No.10, Sector-44, near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                             Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Birinder Pal Singh - complainant in person.

                             Shri Subhash Chand,Advocate for Opposite Parties.

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        Birinder Pal Singh – complainant booked a 2 BHK flat bearing No.601 with Ansal Housing and Construction Limited in Woodbury Apartments at Bhabat (Zirakpur), Punjab on October 05^th, 2008 on payment of Rs.29,000/-. By that time, bricks work of the flat was complete and the complainant was assured completion and delivery of possession of the flat by the end of the year 2009. The basic sale price of the flat after deducting net discount and including PLC was Rs.23,52,531.22. The remaining sale price amount was paid as per payment plan detailed in paragraph No.8 of the complaint. The complainant from October 05^th, 2008 up to June 03^rd, 2011 made payment of the total amount of Rs.33,11,352/-. The payment of the amount was made through cheques and the amount was credited in the account of the opposite parties in Axis Bank CMS Sector-10, Panchkula.  After three years also, the construction was not complete and later on the complainant was informed that the construction of three BHK flats was going to be completed earlier and offered complainant allotment of 3 BHK flat. By that time, neither the occupation certificate was received nor clearance in connection with pollution was obtained from the competent authorities.

3.                Facing this situation, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’) with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the total amount paid by the complainant Rs.33,11,352/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum; to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

4.                On appearance, instead of filing written version, the opposite parties filed an application with a prayer to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant as State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘the State Commission’) has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint on the plea that the plot allotted in the name of the complainant is situated in the area of Punjab; the letter of allotment (Annexure C-2) was issued from head office of the opposite parties at New Delhi; all payments concerning with this flat were made at New Delhi and that the Letter of offer of Possession (Annexure C-3) was also issued from Delhi. Moreover, information under Right to Information Act regarding this project was also obtained by the complainant from the office of Municipal Corporation, Zirakpur and that no cause of action arose within the area of State of Haryana. It has been prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                The complainant filed reply taking plea that State Commission, Haryana has jurisdiction to decide this complaint as the office of the opposite parties exists in SCO No.34, Swastik Vihar, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula and information regarding B.O. & Controlling office was provided by the opposite parties themselves vide letter dated February 19^th, 2014. Moreover, head office of the opposite parties has been shifted from Delhi to Sector-14, Gurgaon for providing better services to the customers for all projects in Haryana, Rajasthan and Zirakpur. Moreover, time to time payments regarding sale price of the plot were made through cheques issued by the complainant from his bank accounts maintained in Dena Bank and few other banks situated at Panchkula. The payments of these cheques were also credited in the account of the opposite parties in Axis Bank, Sector-10, Panchkula. The documents concerned with this transaction were executed by the Marketing officials of the opposite parties at the residence of the complainant in Sector-21, Panchkula. Moreover, it is not a case of mortgage of the property in dispute. In this way, it is clear that the cause of action arose at Panchkula and Gurgaon also which are situated within the territory of Haryana State. The complainant has prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy cost.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7.                It is evident from the copy of letter dated February 19^th, 2014 placed on the file that the Opposite Parties - Ansal Housing & Constructions Limited have shifted their head office from New Delhi to Sector-14, Gurgaon for the purpose of handling their customers for all projects in Haryana, Rajasthan and Zirakpur. In this way, after issuance of this letter on February 19^th, 2014 all activities concerning with this project and allotment of flat to the complainant continued from Gurgaon office. It is also admitted fact that the branch office of the Ansal Housing & Construction Limited exits from the very beginning in S.C.O. No.34, Swastik Vihar, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula.  It is mentioned in the letter dated February 19^th, 2014 also as well as account statement placed on the file. As mentioned in paragraph No.8 of the complaint and as not disputed by the opposite parties also, all payments regarding this transaction were made by the complainant from his bank accounts in Dena Bank, ICICI Bank and few other banks situated at Panchkula through cheques and that payment was credited in the account of the opposite parties in Axis Bank branch situated at Panchkula. However, receipts regarding the above mentioned payments, photo state copies of which are placed on the file were issued from Delhi office. The complainant in his reply has taken plea that marketing officials of the opposite parties executed documents at the residence of the complainant in Sector-21, Panchkula after going through the original bank passbook, Pan Card etc. The possibilities also cannot be ruled out regarding execution of certain documents at the residence of the complainant as distance of Sector-21, Panchkula from this project situated at Zirakpur is not more than three kms. In our view, merely because the receipts regarding payments were issued from Delhi office and allotment letter was issued from Delhi office, findings cannot be given that only State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. In fact, cause of action partly arose at Panchkula and Gurgaon also keeping in mind the above mentioned transactions and as the Head Office of the opposite parties also had been shifted to Gurgaon in the year 2014.  The allotment letters and receipts regarding payments were also received at Panchkula.

8.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant argued that as the project in which the flat has been allotted to the complainant, is situated in the area of Punjab State and head office of the opposite parties is situated at New Delhi, the Haryana State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint.  In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the complainant has also placed his reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 1.  We have closely perused the above cited case law. Facts of the case in hand are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case law referred above. In Sonic Surgical’s case (Supra), facts were that the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and fire broke out in the godown of the complainant at Ambala, the insurance claim was filed at Ambala whereas complaint was filed by the complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh and that complaint was allowed. On appeal, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’) set aside the order of the State Commission and dismissed the complaint. Later on the Hon’ble Supreme Court also affirmed the findings of the Hon’ble National Commission.  As per facts of case law referred above, although branch office of the opposite party was in existence in Chandigarh also but no cause of action even partly arose in the area of Chandigarh.  Cited case law above is of no help to the applicant-opposite parties in this case.  As per facts of the case in hand, cause of action partly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission but as per facts of above cited case law, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Commission of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Apart from it, it is specifically provided under Section  17(2) (b) of the Act, branch office specifically provides that a complaint under the provisions of the Act can be filed at a place where the branch office of the opposite party exists.

10.              No other point was raised during the course of arguments.

11.              As a result as per discussions above in detail, we find no merit in the application filed by the opposite parties and the same deserves to be dismissed with costs. It appears that the present application has been filed by the opposite parties only with the motive to cause un-necessary delay in decision of the complaint. The opposite parties have been successful to cause delay in the proceedings of this case. In this complaint case, service was complete on July 13^th, 2017 and thereafter the case was adjourned for filing written version. Due to filing of the present application on September 06^th, 2017, still this complaint case is at the stage of filing written version. Keeping in mind all these circumstances, the application filed by the opposite parties stands dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant on the next date of hearing.

 

Announced: 02.02.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL