MS. SABINA MONGIA filed a consumer case on 15 Mar 2016 against JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/148/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Mar 2016.
Delhi
StateCommission
CC/148/2016
MS. SABINA MONGIA - Complainant(s)
Versus
JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)
ANANT KR. AGGARWAL
15 Mar 2016
ORDER
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Through its Manager/Authorised Representative. ….....Opp. Parties
CORAM
O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
S. C. Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
The present complaint at the stage of admission is being taken up only on the plea of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant is NRI. On 30.03.2011 she applied for booking of residential unit in Jaypee Green Sports City, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. OP-1 & 2 issued provisional allotment letter dated 08.10.2011 mentioning unit No.KS3-14-302 in Kassia and possession was to be delivered within 24 months. The cost of the unit was enhanced from Rs.31,23,300/- to Rs.34,91,300/-. After visiting the site, complainant was surprised to see that tower has been constructed up to the ground floor only. Hence, this complaint for refund of Rs.29,50,132/- with 18% interest from the date of deposit till realisation, Rs.eight lac as Pre-EMI interest paid by her to OP-3 bank, Rs.five lacs as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and financial loss. She has also prayed for Rs.five lacs for non supply of complete documents, Rs.one lac as litigation cost.
The registered office of OP-1 is in Noida, UP. The project is also in UP. Hence it was put to the counsel for complainant as to how Delhi Commission has territorial jurisdiction. Copy of receipt at page-38, copy of original allotment letter at page-39 to 40 shows that registered office of OP is in Sector-128, Noida, UP.
Counsel for complainant submitted that OP has its branch office in Delhi as depicted in the information downloaded by him. He stressed that as per Section-11 of Consumer Protection Act, complaint can be filed at a place where branch office is. The said Section has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Soni Surgical Vs. NIC, IV (2009) CPJ 40 and it was held that company may be having hundred of branch offices but that does not mean that the complainant can drag the company to any of the branch irrespective of whether the cause of action arose there or not. Similar view has been taken by National Commission in Melanie Das Vs. RSA Insurance Company Limited, 2014, Consumer Judgement 299.
The counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has correspondence address in New Delhi. The said place is irrelevant for territorial jurisdiction.
Counsel for complainant submitted that application was filled up at Delhi. The same is unilateral act of the complainant and is irrelevant.
Counsel for complainant also drew our attention to quadripartite agreement which was executed at Delhi. The same is with OP bank from whom the complainant took loan. That is again immaterial for determining territorial jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction.
Complaint is dismissed in limini.
A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)
(S. C. Jain)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.