Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/305/2016

Subhash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.E.O./Director Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Sharma Adv. & Ravi Kumar Bhatti Adv., Himanshu Chhabra Adv.

26 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	305/2016
Date of Institution	:	05.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	26.05.2016

 

                                               

                                                         

Subhash Chander s/o Sh.Panchhi Ram r/o H.No.59, Sector-8A, Chandigarh 

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

CEO/Director, Unitech Ltd., 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 

2^nd Address:

Unitech Ltd., Real Estate Division (Marketing) Ground Floor, Signature Towers, South City-I, NH-6, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

 

3^rd Address:

Manager, Unitech Ltd., Marketing Office SCO No.189-90-91, Sector 17-C,  Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by: Sh.Himanshu Chhabra, Counsel for the complainant.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that OP approached him and made tall claims regarding the projects being undertaken by them and bright future in property development and having the approval for developing the residential colony in Unihomes to be developed in Mega Township named as “Uniworld City, Sector 107, Mohali, Punjab.   An agreement dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure C-1) in respect of the flat No.0131, 2^nd Floor, lock A at Uniworld City, Sector 107, Mohali was executed between the complainant and the OPs for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,46,704/- and the possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. by 23.06.2013. An allotment letter dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure C-2) was also issued.  Subsequently, as per the schedule of payment, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,33,000/- vide receipt dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure C-3), Rs.2,71,920/- vide receipt dated 24.09.2010 and Rs.15,509/- on account of interest on delayed payment vide receipt dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure C-4).  The next installment was to be paid on the commencement of the construction/demarcation but neither any demarcation nor any construction was commenced nor the possession of the flat was offered to him till date despite his repeated requests. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure C-5 [Colly.]) upon the OPs to refund the deposited amounts but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the preliminary hearing and have gone through the documents on record.
3.           After going through the documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage for want of territorial jurisdiction.  It is apt to mention here that the columns with regard to the place, day and year have been left blank in the agreement (Annexure C-1) and as such it is difficult to ascertain as to when and where the same was executed.   However, from the first page of the agreement i.e. stamp paper of Rs.100/-, it appears that the same was executed at Delhi.  It is further established from the receipts (Annexures C-2 to C-4)  placed on record by the complainant himself that the installments through different cheques towards the flat in question were received by M/s Unitech Ltd. at  Gurgaon.  It is also evident from the Annexures attached with the compliant that the complainant was resident of Varanasi (India) when he booked the flat in question with the OP. Moreover, the project of the OP in which the complainant booked the flat in question is also situated at Mohali. The complainant has not been able to place on record any document to show that any cause of action has accrued to him at Chandigarh and this Forum has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Our view is also strengthened from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) and the operative part of the same reads as under :-

“4.     In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

                   XXX                         XXX                     XXX

8.      Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity [vide G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].”

4.           Our view is further bolstered from the order dated 20.05.2015 passed by our own Hon’ble State Commission in C.C. No.92 of 2015 –Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. and others, the relevant paras of the said order reads as under:-

“5.              No doubt, the complainant averred that the FDRs were surrendered in the office of Opposite Party No.3 at Chandigarh for obtaining the maturity amount and the same were duly stamped by the said office at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the FDRs were surrendered to Opposite Party No.3, at Chandigarh, did not give rise to any cause of action at Chandigarh. Opposite Party No.3 was only to send the FDRs to the Registered Office at Unitech Limited at New Delhi, for payment of the maturity value. Opposite Party No.3 was only to act as a facilitator. The amount for issuance of the FDRs was sent by the complainant to the Registered Office of Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi. As stated above, the FDRs were also issued by the Registered Office of Unitech Limited, New Delhi. The maturity value of the FDRs was to be paid by the Registered Office (issuing office) of Unitech Limited, New Delhi.

“9.    …………….It is, therefore, held that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint and, as such, the same (complaint) is liable to be returned to the complainant, for presenting the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).

10.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, in original, alongwith the documents, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, against valid receipt,  after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint)”.

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case.  Hence, from the above scenario, it is clear that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh so as to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

5.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Accordingly, without touching the merits of the present complaint, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty, to approach the appropriate Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 
6.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.05.2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER