Haryana

Karnal

79/2012

Anjali Sachdeva W/o Kamal Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indiabulls Financial Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K. Bhargava

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.79 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.: 08.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision:24.1.2017

 

Smt. Anjali Sachdeva wife of Shri Kamal Sachdeva son of Shri Madan Gopal Sachdeva resident of house no.2426, sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal through her special power of attorney Shri Madan Gopal Sachdeva son of Shri Mool Chand Sachdeva resident of house no.2426, sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The Branch Manager, Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Mall Road, Karnal.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri S.K.Bhargava  Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite party.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act-1986, on the averments that she purchased one plot in sector 45 CHD city Karnal, as investment in the name of her father-in-law Shri Madan Gopal and sister-in-law Deepika and market value of the said plot was more than Rs.60,00,000/-. Her father-in-law is already owner in possession of one house bearing no.2426 sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal and the market value of the same was more than 2 crores. At the time of purchase of the said plot, the officials/representatives of the opposite party approached her a number of times to purchase the property anywhere in India and they would provide loan upto the extent of 85% of the total value of the plot. On their representation, she agreed to purchase a plot in township project known as “Jindal Global City” at Sonepat, Haryana, which is near the Rajiv Gandhi Education Institute, because her husband is C.A. and serving abroad in Infinity Tyre Ltd. 35, Adeola, Odeku Street Victoria Island Legos Nigeria and she is  M.C.A. Before purchasing the said plot, she had given all the requisite documents to the opposite party, who after pursuing the same was satisfied and agreed to provide loan, upto 85% of the total value of the plot. On the Assurance of opposite party she called her husband from Nigeria on 11.7.2011. Thereafter, she applied for plot no.C-125 in Jindal Global City, Sonepat. The total cost of the said plot was Rs.9656776/- which was to be paid in installments as per the schedule set up by the builder i.e. Jindal Reality Pvt. Ltd. She had paid an amount of Rs.12 lacs to the said builder on 29.7.2011 on the assurance of the opposite party. In furtherance of the assurance given by the opposite party, a Tripartite Agreement dated 11.8.2011 was executed among her, Jindal Reality Pvt. Ltd. and the opposite party. She also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her father-in-law, as she was also planning to go abroad. However, at the time of execution of the said agreement the opposite party told that a loan of Rs.30 lacs would be granted in her favour and after sometime another Rs.30 Lacs would be granted. However, the opposite party did not pay even a single penny and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. As per the schedule setup by the builder, she was required to pay second installment of Rs.11,64,640/- on 9.9.2011, for which she contacted the opposite party, who assured that her case was sent to the Head Office and very soon Rs.30 lacs would be given to her to facilitate the deposit of further installments, but there was no truth in the assurance of the opposite party and no amount was paid to her. The builder started demanding the installments alongwith interest and sent letter dated 15.10.2011 demanding Rs.11,69,440/- alongwith interest of Rs.20,229/-. The builder also clarified that failing payment of the said amount, the allotment would stand cancelled and earnest money of Rs.12lacs shall stand forfeited without any further notice. She continuously kept on requesting the opposite party to give her the amount of Rs.30 lacs so that further installments could be paid, but the opposite party kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, another installment of Rs.1204800/-fell due on 24.10.2011 and the builder gave another notice dated 17.12.2011 demanding an amount of Rs.35,12,149/- and interest of Rs.96531/-. The allotment was cancelled by the builder and the amount of Rs.12 lacs deposited by her was forfeited. The opposite party was legally bound to pay the loan upto 85% of the total value of the plot, but nothing was done despite repeated requests and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Due to such act and conduct of the opposite party, she suffered mental agony and pain apart from financial loss of Rs.12 lacs deposited by her with the builder on 26.7.2011, which was forfeited by the builder. Apart from that her husband also suffered loss of salary of one month and travelling expenses as he came to India on 11.7.2011 and returned to abroad by air on 17.8.2011.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act and that the complaint is false, frivolous and an abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that Kamal Sachdeva, the husband of the complainant approached the opposite party in the month of April, 2011,  for availing housing finance facility for purchasing a property of the value of Rs.40 to 45 lacs, vide application dated 6.4.2011. After going through his proposal, the opposite party accepted the same and consequently in principal approved the loan facility of the same. Kamal Sachdeva was opting to purchase the property in his wife’s name i.e. complainant and he submitted documents like PAN Card, ITR, Form 16-A, bank statements showing his worth for repaying the financed amount. He also submitted his income proof regarding job in Dass Gupta & Associates, New Delhi, from where he was getting professional charges to the tune of Rs.5,48,000/- per year. He assured the opposite party that he would be in a position to honour his commitments of repaying the financed amount. Lateron, in the month of July, 2011, he selected a property bearing plot no.125, block-C, in Jindal Global City, Sonepat to be purchased in his wife’s name. He intimated about the same to opposite party in the month of July-August 2011. The property selected by him was worth Rs.96 lacs approximately. Then the concerned official of the opposite party told him that he was to make own contribution of Rs.66 lacs for getting the same financed, for which he became ready. Letter of sanction dated 10.8.2012 was issued. As a result of pre-arranging, the documents for getting the loan facility, he executed Tripartite agreement. Loan of Rs.30 lacs was accorded in principal approval on the basis that Kamal Sachdeva was Indian Resident. Lateron, he shifted to Nigeria and was getting salary on quarterly basis, as per copy of letter of employer Yyreplus Industries Limited. He wanted to increase the loan to 60 lacs as he was unable to arrange margin amount of Rs.66 lacs required for purchasing the plot. Since there was material change in facts and circumstances, the opposite party found it difficult to reappraise the loan application and enhance the loan facility as desired by Kamal Sachdeva. As Kamal Sachdeva failed to pay own contribution to the extent of 66 lacs, therefore, the loan facility could not be extended. Even the salary of Kamal Sachdeva was on quarterly basis. Thus, Kamal Sachdeva or his wife i.e. the complainant had breached the terms and conditions of Tripartite Agreement. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, as per the policy of company the persons who are getting income in Nigeria(NRI policy) do not qualify for loan. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of Madan Gopal Sachdeva father-in-law of the complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C2 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, the affidavit of Hardeep Singh Senior Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/E have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Before adverting to deal with the other aspects of the case, it is necessary to decide the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party regarding territorial jurisdiction of this forum to entertain and decide the present complaint, because if this forum has no territorial jurisdiction then there would be no need to deal with the other aspects of the case regarding dispute between the parties.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party laid emphasis on the contention that Tripartite Agreement between the complainant, the opposite party and the builder was executed at New Delhi and the property sought to be purchased and financed by the complainant was situated at Sonepat. Nothing material happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum, therefore, this forum at Karnal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1) CPC 379.

8.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant had applied for loan facility to the opposite party at its Karnal office, the approval of the loan was also conveyed to the complainant at Karnal. Moreover, the office of the opposite party is also situated at Karnal. Therefore, this forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

9.                In Sonic Surgical’s case (supra) the insurance policy was obtained at Ambala covering the risk of godown situated at Ambala. Fire destroyed insured stock lying in the said godown. However, the complaint was filed by the complainant before Hon’ble Consumer Commission of U.T. Chandigarh. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no cause of action arose at Chandigarh though the company had branch office at Chandigarh. Therefore, the commission at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

10.              The facts of the present case are to be considered in the light of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical’s case(supra) . In the instant case, the Tripartite Agreement among the complainant, the opposite party and Jindal Reality Private Ltd. was executed at New Delhi on 11^th day of August 2011, as is evident from the copy of the Tripartite Agreement Ex.C4. The plot buyers agreement, the copy of which is Ex.C2, was also executed between the complainant and M/s Jindal Reality Private Limited at New Delhi on the same day i.e. 11.08.2011. The plot to be purchased by the complainant after getting financial help from the opposite party is situated at Sonepat. The complainant could not produce any document, which may show that the loan was approved/sanctioned at Karnal, the order was conveyed to the complainant at Karnal or any without part of cause of action accrued at Karnal. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical’ case (supra)  this forum at Karnal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in dispute.

11.              As this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in dispute. There is no need to deal with other aspects of the case because that would be a futile exercise.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the complaint is dismissed as this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in dispute. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent forum/court having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The period spent by her in the present proceedings shall be taken into consideration for limitation purposes. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 25.1.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member