DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No.362 of 2012]

Ajay Kanwar s/o Sh. Kanwar Gulwant Singh (I.A.S Retd.) House No.535, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Country Club (India) Limited, Aroma Hotel Complex, Sector 22, Chandigarh through representative Sh. Vijay Choudhary

2.                 Hiraram Palati, National Head Sales and Marketing, Country Club (India) Limited, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

3.                 Y. Rajeev Reddy, CMD, Country Club (India) Limited, Amartha Castle, 5-9-16, Saffabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Sunil K. Dixit, Adv. for the complainant

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Ajay Kanwar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

i)                   To pay Rs.70,000/- + 7719 + 14000 = Rs.77719+14000 (Himachal Tourism expenses in hotel as room rent) with 24% interest till payment.

ii)                To pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment/torture and

iii)              To pay Rs.14,000/- for legal fees alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was fraudulently induced by the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- in cash and Rs.60,000/- by cheque for its vacation membership.  In addition, the complainant was also asked to pay Rs.7,719/- as annual maintenance charges, if he wanted confirmed reservation in the hotel/resort of the opposite parties, which he paid.   The complainant was also disclosed that he shall be given studio room consisting of two double bed rooms, free of charges for six nights seven days every year for 10 years.  However, according to the complainant, now they are asking him to pay extra price for children’s double bedroom at market rate and further insisting that if he wants reservation at Manali then he shall have to pay Rs.500/- extra per day.  According to the complainant, he was also assured that he need not worry about reservation as he has to only visit the office of the opposite party at Chandigarh for booking in any hotel of the opposite party at any time and that he would get reservation as per his demand/ choice.  According to the complainant, when he visited the opposite parties for booking in Manali hotel for three days period, in the month of June 2012, he was told that no accommodation is available but, after much persuasion, the opposite parties got him reservation for hotel in Manali for 20^th – 23^rd May, 2012.   However, the complainant requested for cancellation of the said booking in the month of April due to final exams of his elder son and further requested for reservation for 3 days between the period starting from the last week of May to entire June, but they failed to do so.   According to the complainant, he was left with no option but to book a guest house of Himachal Tourism for which he had to pay Rs.14,000/-.  Thereafter, surprisingly, the complainant received an email from the opposite parties asking him to share his experience of stay in their hotel at Manali, though he never stayed in their hotel.   The complainant contacted the opposite parties personally and cleared the whole picture but they started avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other.  The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the opposite parties, but no reply was received. 

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the relief mentioned above.

3.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, at the admission stage, and have gone through the documents on record.

4.                           From the averments made in the complaint, it is apparent that the Membership Purchase Agreement For Vacation Membership    (C-1) was executed at Hyderabad.  Though the complainant has arrayed opposite party No.1 to make the jurisdiction of this Forum but he has not been able to show any document through which it can be concluded that some part of cause of cause of action took place at Chandigarh.  Annexure C-2 is the receipt of the Axis Bank with which the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.7,719/- in the a/c of ‘Country Club India Ltd.’  However, merely by depositing some amount in the account of the opposite party which is not maintained at Chandigarh would not confer jurisdiction on this Forum. 

5.                           Here we can also refer to the case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), and the relevant paras of the same are reproduced 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].”

6.                           The ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  The District Forum at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter.  

7.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, in limine, for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to file the complaint in the appropriate District Forum having jurisdiction over the matter.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.7.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg