BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.425 of 2015
Date of institution: 20.08.2015
Date of Decision: 30.06.2016
Shri Ram, House No.1225, Sector 9, Urban Estate, Karnal (Haryana)
……..Complainant
Versus
Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization, 6th Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi 110001 through its Chief Executive Officer.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri J.P. Nahar, counsel for the complainant.
Shri R.C. Sharma, counsel for the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) refund him Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of cancellation till realization.
(b) pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(c) pay him Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.
The case of the complainant is that he applied for allotment of flat to be built by the OP at Mohali Phase-II, Housing Scheme and he was allotted membership No.MHB1064 vide letter dated 28.07.2014. The OP issued allotment letter dated 28.07.2014 and also asked the complainant to make payment of first installment. It was also mentioned in Clause-5 of the allotment letter that in case the allottee is not interested, the OP be informed about this within 30 days of date of issuance of allotment letter. The complainant vide letter dated 25.08.2014 sent through registered post to the OP had conveyed his non acceptance of offer as he was not interested in the flat. The OP vide letter dated 10.09.2014 confirmed that the membership of the complainant has been cancelled and directed the complainant to send pre-receipt on the attached proforma, which the complainant sent vide letter dated 30.09.2014. It was also mentioned in this letter that the letter sent for cancellation was 25.08.2014 but the date was inadvertently mentioned as 28.08.2014 and the letter was sent on 25.08.2014 itself through registered post. However, the complainant received letter dated 24.11.2014 from the OP vide which he was informed that cancellation charges @ 15% of the installment of ‘B’ type i.e. Rs.7,58,100/- has been charged and nothing is refundable to the complainant and the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been adjusted against cancellation charges. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 05.01.2015 and the OP vide letter dated 05.02.2015 reiterated its earlier stand. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed reply in which it took preliminary objections that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant deposited the amount at Karnal and the office of the OP is situated at New Delhi. Though the project is located in Mohali but the complainant carries no grievance with regard to the project but it seeking refund of the money deposited at Karnal. The complainant has concealed material facts from the Forum. It has been clearly mentioned in the Scheme brochure that the earnest money deposited is automatically considered as part payment of installment(s) on allotment. In the present case construction was already going on when the complainant applied for allotment of flat. The complainant was specifically informed that he has the opportunity to refuse the offer and communicate non acceptance within 30 days and beyond that period it shall be subject to payment of withdrawal/cancellation charges as per rules of the OP. On merits, it is pleaded that the date of posting the letter does not carry any relevance as the date of receipt of letter in the office of the OP is the relevant date to meet the requirement of non acceptance within 30 days. The fact remains that the OP received letter dated 28.08.2014 on 28.08.2014 itself when the time period of 30 days had already elapsed. Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-10.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Ms. Anju Arora, its AAO Ex.OP-1/1 and copy relevant part of rules downloaded from internet Ex.OP-1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. The allotment of membership No.MHB1064 vide letter dated 28.07.2014 by the OP in favour of the complainant for allotment of flat to be built up by the OP at Mohali Phase-II Housing Scheme is not disputed. Further the payment of Rs.50,000/- as initial booking amount by the complainant is also not disputed. As per Clause-5 of the allotment letter Ex.C-1 the complainant had been given the option to withdraw from the scheme in case he is not interested and in such eventuality the allottee/complainant was required to inform the OP within 30 days of the date of issuance of allotment letter. The complainant has exercised his option vide registered letter dated 25.08.2014 conveyed to the OP his withdrawal from the scheme as he was not interested in the scheme. The OP has accepted the option of the complainant and confirmed the cancellation of membership and directed the complainant to send pre receipt on the attached proforma as per the letter date 10.09.2014. The complainant sent the pre receipt on attached proforma vide letter dated 30.09.2014. Again in this letter the complainant clarified that the date on his request for cancellation has inadvertently been mentioned as 28.08.2014 whereas it is to be read as 25.08.2014 as the complainant has sent the registered letter on 25.08.2014 as is evident from contents of postal receipt Ex.C-4. The OP though have confirmed cancellation of the membership but forfeited Rs.50,000/- as the said amount has been adjusted against the cancellation charges @ 15% of the installment of B-type i.e. Rs.7,58,100/- which was chargeable from the complainant. The said amount has been forfeited by the OP on the ground that his request for cancellation has been received by it after the expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as it has illegally forfeited Rs.50,000/- though he has sent his option well within the stipulated period.
7. The OP has taken preliminary objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as no cause of action against it has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, before proceeding further it will be appropriate to decide this issue. As per the OP the amount in question has been deposited by the complainant at Karnal and the OP from whom the cancellation of membership and refund of amount is sought, has its office situated at New Delhi. Therefore, the cause of action of cancellation and refund of the deposited amount has arisen at New Delhi. No doubt the project is located in Mohali against which the complainant has applied for allotment of flat and sought the membership thereof and paid the membership fee but in the present complaint he has no grievance whatsoever with regard to the project which is situated at Mohali. Hence, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the OP at Mohali.
8. The perusal of Ex.C-1 i.e. allotment letter shows that it has been issued by the office of the OP situated at New Delhi and the complainant has acknowledged the receipt of allotment letter at Karnal as is evident from Ex.C-3. The payment of Rs.50,600/- has been made by the complainant from Karnal and receipt thereof has been issued by the OP from New Delhi. The complainant has sent his letter for cancellation from Karnal for the OP who has its office at New Delhi as is evident from the contents of postal receipt Ex.C-4. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, we fully agree with the contention of the OP and further the same has been proved on record by the OP.
9. In view of above discussion, the complaint being not maintainable before this Forum due to lack of territorial jurisdiction is hereby returned to the complainant. The complaint alongwith original documents, if any, and member sets be returned to the complainant with the liberty to approach appropriate Forum/authority having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the papers be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 30, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
