Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1487/2017

SH. SUMMET MANGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BANMALI SHUKLA

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments 22.09.2017

Date of Decision :09.10.2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1487/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Sumeet Mangla,

R/o. 50, Deepali Ground Floor,

Pitampura, Delhi-110034.

 

Also at

Plto No.C-245, Garden City, DLF,

Purseni, Lucknow, UP.                                                                            ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

M/s. DLF Limited,

Through its Manager ? AR.

1/72, Vipul Khand,

Gomti Nagar, LUcknow-226010 (UP).

 

Also at :

DLF Shopping Mall,

3^rd Floor, Arjun Marg,

DLF City Pahse-I,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

Also at:

DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                     …..Respondent

 

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                     Yes

 

Present:           Shri  B.M. Shukla with Shri Ved Prakash Masih, Counsel for the complainant.

                        None for the respondent.

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

 

          Non handing over  of the possession of the plot booked by the complainant, despite total payment having been made and agreed time having been elapsed, is the root cause of the complaint filed in the commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the complaint, are these.

          Shri Sumeet Mangla, resident of Delhi has filed this complaint, for short complainant, against DLF Limited, hereinafter referred to as opposite party, alleging that the opposite party has not handed over physical possession of the plot no.C-245 Garden City, DLF, Purseni, Lucknow, UP, booked by him on 27.01.2012 after making payment of the booking amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Total sale consideration was of Rs.40,37,000/-. It was assured and promised that the possession would be handed over in 24 months i.e. 27.01.2014 or in the further extended period of 12 months, i.e. 27.02.2015.

          However, instead of handing over possession within the time as agreed to, the OP demanded  more money and under pressure, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.51,48,403/-, which is approximately Rs.11 lakhs more than the amount agreed to.

          Additionally he had also demanded:

a)      Rs.9,60,887/- towards electricity, water and sewage and for other miscellaneous charges;

b)      Rs.89,878/- towards secondly

c)      Rs.60,629/- towards service tax

          These additional amount as demanded was never indicated at the time of booking. This demand of the OP, according to the complainant, amounts to unfair trade practice.

          The complainant made several requests and sent many communications for the possession of the flat but all his efforts done in this behalf proved an exercise in futility inasmuch as the OP took no step to do his part of the duty or obligation as agreed to.

          Since there was delay in getting the possession and since there appeared to be no possibility of getting it, the complainant sought for the refund with interest but that also evoked no response.

          Faced with this situation the complainant has filed this complaint praying for the relief as under:

a)      This Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to pass an order thereby directing the respondent to refund the said  entire amount of Rs.51,48,403/- paid to the respondent/ opposite party by the complainant alongwith interest @24% per annum, in the interest of justice.

b)      This Hon’ble Commission may kindly be directed to the respondents to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for mental torture, pain and agony.

c)      To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.51,000/- as litigation charges.

d)      Pass any other or further order(s) & relief(s) which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party, in the interest of justice.

 

This complaint was listed before us for admission hearing on 22.09.2017 when the ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

In the first instance we note that the commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear this case, since the head office of the OP is not in Delhi. Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 posits as under:

{(2)A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,-

a)      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

b)      any 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, 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 institution, or

c)      the case of action, wholly or in part, arises.}

A bare reading of the provision of the law envisage that territorial jurisdiction of a State commission is determined from the place where the cause of action  arose and where the OP works for gain. Section 17(2)(i) and 17(2)(iii) may have to be read together to reach to a conclusion regarding territorial jurisdiction.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Soni Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company IV(2009) CPJ 40 (SC) has held

“The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2), the complaint could have been filed at Chandigarh.  We regret we cannot agree with the ld. 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  consequences. If the contention of the ld. Counsel is accepted,  it will  mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim / petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gujrat or anywhere  in India where branch office of the company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. In our opinion therefore Branch office would mean the office where the cause of action arose………………..

          The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Lasa Footwear – IV (2012) CPJ 821 (NC) – has held

“Expression branch office in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where cause of action has arisen”

          In the given case the cause of action certainly did not arise in Delhi. Besides the head office of the OP is found to be at Gurgaon. If that be the case this commission lacked the territorial jurisdiction to  hear this case.

          Secondly we note that this Commission lacks even the pecuniary jurisdiction. For this purpose Section 17(1)(a)(c) reproduced below:

          (a)     to entertain –

(i)      complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if nay, claimed (exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and

(ii)     appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

         

          On a bare reading of the provisions of the Act it is manifestly clear that for arriving at a decision regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, both value of goods or services and the compensation claimed has to be added.

          This clearly goes to show that if the value of goods and compensation claimed put together are found to be more than Rs.One crore, this Commission would be lacking jurisdiction to  hear and dispose of the case.

The three Member Bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.CC no.97/2016 decided on 07.10.2016 held  as under:-

“the amount of compensation as  claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed  in the complaint would  determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.”

           We have read and re-read the prayers made in the complaint. Refund of Rs.51,48,403/- with 24% has been sought for. Additionally compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.51,000/- have been sought for as litigation expenses.  The entire amount once added would be more than Rs.One Crore which means, this case would be barred by the provisions of Section 17(1)(a)(c) of the Act.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion done, we are of the considered view that this commission lacks the jurisdiction, both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this case and we accordingly order to return the complaint to file it before the for a enjoying the jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

          We order accordingly.

          Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.

File be consigned to records.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)