Delhi

StateCommission

CC/957/2017

RAHUL PATHANIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

PEEYUSH KAUSHIK

10 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 10. 07.2017

Date of Decision :  11.07.2017

Consumer Complaint No.957/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Rahul Pathania,

S/o. Shri Tarsem Singh Pathania,

R/o. Flat No.E-804, Ranjit Vihar-1,

Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi.                                                            ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

1.M/s. Ansal Properties & Manufacture Ltd.

At : 1202-04, Antriksh Bhawan,

22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

Nre Delhi-110001.

(Through its Managing Director)

 

2.Shri Neeraj Kumar  Sharma,

Senior Executive (S&M),

Authorized Person of

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.,

SCI-183-184 Sector 9-C,

Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.                                                                     ….Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Present  : Shri Peeyush Kaushik, counsel for complainant.

 

PER  : HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

          Shri Rahul Pathania resident of Delhi  has filed a complaint before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against Ansal Properties & Manufacture Ltd., hereinafter referred to as complainant and OP respectively, alleging deficiency in service, have prayed for relief as under:-

          Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,11,628/- alongwith interest @18% per annum.

2.      It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may please direct the  Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation towards the monitory loss suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- toward the mental harassment, deficiency of service and torturing the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges.

3.      Such other further relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant.

          Facts of the case are these.

          The complainant wanting to have a flat and having been lured by the advertisement of the OP applied for the allotment of a three bed room flat vide the application dated 10.09.10 for a total area of 1299 sq feet @2171  per sq ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.28,40,000/- out of the total sale consideration. The complainant had paid Rs.4,23,000/- as the initial amount on 10.09.10. He had paid a second installment of  Rs.8,83,628/- in first week of June, 2011 and thereafter third installment of Rs.20,11,628/- have been paid to the OP but the OP have issued receipt of payment of only Rs.4,23,000/-.

          The OP had subsequently  issuing a provisional  allotment  letter for unit no.920-FF, area 1299 sq feet, scheme Exclusive Floors, Prfoject Name Gold Links, Sector-114, Mohali, Punjab. Time limit fixed for handing over the possession of a flat and mentioned condition no.12  of the terms and conditions mentioned in allotment letter is as under:-

          The construction of the said independent floor is likely to be completed within 24 to 30 months of commencement of work, which shall be tentatively the4 date of receipt of all requisite sanctions/ approvals/ permissions/ clearances subject however to force majeure circumstances, regular and timely payments by allottee(s), availability of building material etc. change of policy by Government/ Local Authorities etc. No claim by way of damages/ compensation shall be raised against the company in case of delay in handing over the possession on account of the said reasons or any other reasons beyond the control of the company.

          The complainant visited the site in  October, 2016 and was shocked to see that only the external structure was built and nothing beyond that. This act on the  part of the OP, according to the complainant, is an act contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at between them.

          Having regard to this the complaint was filed before this Commission for the relief stated above.

          We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record paid.

In the first instance we note that the cause of action of the matter arose in an area out side Delhi and thus keeping in view the provisions of  Section 17 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 we cannot hear this case for want of territorial jurisdiction of this commission. As per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17, posits as under:-

{(2) A complainant shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limit of whose jurisdiction:-

1. 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 
2. Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than on, 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 State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institutions; or
3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.}

On a plain reading of the afore extracted provision it becomes clear to us that a complaint under the Act can be instituted before a State Commission within limits of whose jurisdiction any one of the three situations contemplated in the provision is shown to exist. The use of the word `of’  at the end of sub-clauses (a) & (b) of the said sub-section is significant and reflects the object of the legislation, leading to the conclusion that each of the three contingencies enumerated therein is independent of each other And not cumulative.

          The expression `casue of action’ is neither defined in the act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, by virtue of a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein the meaning of the said expression in legal parlance has been explained, the expression has been held to be of wide import. Generally, the expression `cause of action’ is described as `bundle of facts’ which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to the relief prayed for.

          It would be manifestly clear from bare reading of the afore mentioned provision of the Act that the complaint can be filed before the fora where the cause of action arose. In the subject the cause of action arose first at Dubai and thereafter at Mumbai.

          Again in Navinchnadra N. Majithia s.State of Maharashtra & Ors (2007) 7 SCC 640, explaining the  import of the said expression, in his concurring judgement, K.T.Thomas J. observed as under:

          “The collection of the words “cause of action, wholly or impart, arises” seems to have been lifted from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which section also deals with the jurisdictional aspects of the courts. As per that section the suit could be instituted in a court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the “cause of action wholly or in part arises”. Judicial pronouncements have accorded almost a uniform interpretation of the said compendious expression even prior to Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution as to mean “the bundle of facts which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, it traversed, in order to support his right to the judgement of the court.”

          In Read V. Brown Lord Esher, M.R. [(1988) 22 QBD 125:58 LJOB 120:60LT 250 (CA)],  adopted the definition for the phrase “cause of action that it meat

          “every fact  which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgement of the court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved”.

          In Kandimalla Raghaviah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2009) 7 SCC 768, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “cause of action” is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit.

Having regard to this we are of the considered view that this complaint is not maintainable before this commission on account of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly we order to return this complaint to file before the Commission enjoying the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

           Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)