DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/302/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Sh. Amit Nigam,
S/o Sh. S.S.L. Nigam,
R/O D-111, Mayur Lane,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-2,
Gurgaon.
.…. Complainant
Versus
Carnation Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at:
203, Caxton House,
2E Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055
Also at:
221-223, IInd Floor,
Vipul Agrora, MG Road,
Gurgaon (HR) .…. Opposite Party
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date pleading therein the following facts:
He booked a residential unit number A1-1315 in Krish City Heights Project of OP for total consideration of Rs. 13,25,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) in April, 2013 and paid Rs. 2,76,290/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety only) to OP towards part payment. Complainant enquired about the status of the project in April 2014 but got no satisfactory reply from the OP. Complainant visited the said project in April, 2015 and found that there was no construction activity at the site. Complainant was constrained to send a legal notice dated 18/09/2015 requesting the OP to refund his deposit of Rs. 276290/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. OP refused to pay the said amount. Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 4,25,290/- (Rupees Four Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Two Hundred Ninety only) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) as compensation from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as litigation expenses.
2. OP contested the claim vide its reply. We have heard Sh. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate for OP. None appeared for the complainant to address arguments. Learned counsel for OP has argued that this forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
3. In Para 6 and 9 of the reply, OP has pleaded that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum and further in view of clause 27 of the application form duly signed by the complainant at the time of the booking of the residential unit only the court of Alwar, where the property is situated, has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to the transaction in question.
Clause 27 of the application form for registration of the residential unit in question duly signed by both parties reads as follows:
“That the Court having original jurisdiction in the Tehsil of Tijara/Alwar alone shall have the jurisdiction in all matters relating to or arising out of this transaction”
Complaint has not disclosed the location of the booked unit. However the receipts placed at pages 13 to 17 of the case file indicates that the booked unit is situated at Alwar Road, Bhiwari, Rajasthan. The said receipts further indicate that payment whether in cash or by cheque was made at Gurgaon. No part of cause of action is proved to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. Merely because OP has its registered office at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, does not mean that the complaint can be filed with this forum.
4. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
5. Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
6. Our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 date of decision : 09.02.2017 held that :
‘’2. We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission. The project is located at Gurgaon. The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI. The name of branch is conspicuously missing. Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch. He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account. So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark. Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction. He relied upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office.
Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India. There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act. Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.
7. Since no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum the complaint is returned with liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction after retaining a copy of the same. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 01st day of Sept. 2018
