Delhi

New Delhi

CC/268/2016

Ram Singh Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dyanamic Infradevelopers Private Ltd & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./268/2016                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

SHRI RAM SINGH AGARWAL,

S/o Late Sh. Deen Dayal Aggarwal,

R/o D-10, Brahma Apartments,

Sector-7, Plot-7, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.

 

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.       DYNAMIC INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,

          CIN : U74899DL1989PTC037477

          Registration No. 037477

          OFFICER AT:

          ▪        66, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

          ▪        30/27, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

          ▪        119/120, 1^st Floor, Gagandeep Building,

                   Rajender Place, New Delhi-110008

          ▪        Bunglow No. 2, First Floor, Patel Road,

                   West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

                              

2.       SH. MANISH KUMAR AGGARWAL,

          Director, Dynamic Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd.

          Director Identification No. 00289163

          E-62, Sector-40, NOIDA-205509, UP

         

3.       SH. VISHNU PRASAD AGGARWAL,

          Director, Dynamic Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd.,

          Director Identification No. 0049061

          Ram Villa, WZ-405, Janak Park, Hari Nagar,

Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064.

4.       SH. SUDHIR GULATI,

          Director, Dynamic Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd.,

          Director Identification No. 00494116

          A-42, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi-110015.

 

 

5.       SH. RAJEEV AGGARWAL,

          Director, Dynamic Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd.,

          Director Identification No. 00725108

          E-67, Block-E, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110001.

 

         

........... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

 

By this order, we shall decide the question of admission of complaint and jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint by this District Forum. The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are, the complainant was offered the flat in Tulsi residency, Parikrma Marg, Goverdhan, District, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh total sale consideration of rupees 1000000/– out of which the complainant paid Rs. 300,000/– to the OP s . On coming to know that the fraud has been committed by the OPs the complainant demanded his money back, which was not given to the complainant despite legal notice dated 28/7/2015. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs against the OPs:

(i)         Issue notice to the OPs

(ii)        Pass an order thereby directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.2013 till realization of amount to the complainant which had been paid by the complainant to the OPs as earnest money for purchase of Flat F-298/A, Type Studio, Tulsi Residency, Parikarma Marg, Goverdhan, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

(iii)       Pass order thereby granting an amount Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation/damages lfor causing mental harassment, agony, humiliation etc. undergone/suffered by the complainant on account of the acts omissions of the OPs and legal charges/expenses for Rs. 25,000/-

(iv)       Pass any other order, which this Forum may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, may be grant in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.

 

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the case and relevant provisions of law. The question of jurisdiction problem in the course of argument on admission of the present complaint.

 

Section 11 of the Act, deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum. Subsection. (1) of this legal provision deals with pecuniary jurisdiction, which is not relevant here. The subsection (2) of section 11 deals with territorial jurisdiction. Clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 11 deal with territorial jurisdiction on the ground of one or more of opposite parties living, working for gain, carrying on business or having branch offices within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to attract jurisdiction of that District Forum. The clause (c) of Sub Section. (2) pertains to attracting jurisdiction of District Forum within territorial area of which the cause of action has wholly or partly has arisen.

 

In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the following observations were made:

 

“Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in 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 consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.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]

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

In Rajan Kapoor versus Estate Officer and another Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 4/11/2011 ,  the following observations were made:

 

“Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Panchkula, in as much as application for allotment was made by the complainant to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer.  Even if one or two letters/ representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Administrator HUDA, it would not make a difference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum.  We are, therefore, of the view that order of the State Commission so far as it directed the complainant- petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.  Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party.”

 

In Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd versus Kone Elevator's India Private limited, and another I (2000. 16) CPJ 190 (NC), the plea of the complainant that cause of action arose when, legal notice was sent to opposite party was not accepted, and it was held that merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action, nor does it extend the period of limitation.

 

In the light of the above case law. It is amply clear that the complainant was required to file the complaint before the District Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action arose coupled with the fact that head office/or  the branch office of the company in question is also situated. Mere sending of a legal notice or one or two letters to the head office of OP one would not constitute cause of action or attract the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum.

Coming to the facts of the case on the one of the branch office of the OP Company is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this District  Forum in Connaught Place, but both branch office as well as part or whole of the cause of action should coexist within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to attract its jurisdiction in the light of Sonic Surgical's case (supra). The land/property in question is situated in District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, the payment in question is made by the complainant by cheque, and the amount was debited from the Dwarka branch of the ING Vysya Bank Ltd and the receipt was issued from Safdarjung Enclave branch of the OP company, so neither the payment is made within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum nor any part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. Further, in the light of Mahesh Ramnath versus Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport & Others REVISION PETITION NO. 2816 OF 2012 filed before Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Honourable National Commission by its order dated 27/9/2012, 10/10/2012, 18/10/2012 and 5/11/2012 has clearly indicated that the District Forums in Delhi should exercise territorial jurisdiction in accordance with the area allotted to them by Notification of Lieutenant Governor being Notification No F.-50 (47) 96-F&S (CA), dated 20/4/1999, clearly demarcating the jurisdiction District wise.

 

In lieu of the above discussion, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint, nor any part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. So we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant along with documents court fee after obtaining a copy of the same, for filing the complaint before the competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

 

This order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on                      .

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                (H M VYAS)

                                                      MEMBER                                                        MEMBER