Paramjit Kaur Vs.  Jalandhar Improvement Trust

Application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum as well as for want of cause of action.

30.6.2016:Present: Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for the complainant.

                                  Sh.Arvind Gupta, counsel for Ops No.1&2                 

ORDER

1. The ld. counsel for the opposite party has filed an application for dismissal of the present complaint, on the ground that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction, for want of cause of action. The complainant has placed on record reply to the same.
2. The ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the present complaint cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum as no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction. He pleaded that by depositing the initial  amount as well as depositing of application form at Patiala do not provide the complainant a legal right to file the complaint at Patiala. The property i.e. plot No.28-C of Surya enclave extension is situated at Jalandhar. The draw took place at Jalandhar. The letter of allotment was issued from Jalandhar. The office of opposite party is situated at Jalandhar. Further all installments in respect of this plot was to deposited by the complainant at Jalandhar office. The construction work of this scheme was started at Jalandhar. Mere residence of complainant at Patiala do not provide the legal remedy to file the complaint at Patiala.
3. The ld. counsel for the OPs argued that as per the clause 15 of the terms and conditions the jurisdiction of this Forum is bared, due to arbitration clause.
4. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainant has objected to the submissions made by the OPs. He stated that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint as part of cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. He pleaded that as per the terms and conditions annexed, it has been mentioned “Names of Banks Authorized to Sell and Collect Application Forms” and under the afore stated head the names of Banks authorized by the OPs are mentioned. He further pleaded that the complainant had deposited the form alongwith the payment at the authorized Bank of OPs at Patiala, being the agent of OPs the said bank received the payment and form on behalf of OPs. The ld. counsel argued that the Arbitration clause is not applicable to the complaint filed before this Forum, as it is a additional remedy. The ld. counsel also placed reliance in a case titled as Munish Dev Sharma Vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr,C.C.No.81 of 2013,date of decision 30.07.2014, wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble State Commission in para no.1 “The application forms were being sold by the State Bank of Patiala and duly filled up forms were also received by that Bank, on behalf of the opposite parties, as their agent.”
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and pursued the documents placed on record, It is a admitted fact that the complainant deposited the form alongwith the part payment in Punjab National Bank, Branch, Patiala. It is also admitted by the parties that the said amount was deposited for purchasing the plot at Jalandhar and the OPs also sent the allotment letter at Jalandhar. In our opinion the dispute between the parties arose at Jalandhar, as per Para no.11 of the complainant, the same is reproduced , “para no.11. That after come into know the said order, the complainant again approached the opposite parties for refunding the amount, but the opposite parties flatly refused to refund the amount alongwith interest but the opposite parties flatly refused to refund the same. The complainant also send legal notice dated 23.11.2015 through registered post and requested to refund the amount alongwith interest but despite the receipt of the legal notice, the O.P. failed to refund the deposited amount to the complainant.”
6. In our opinion, the complainant has filed the present complaint at Patiala because complainant had deposited the form alongwith the payment in the Bank situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum and also received the allotment letter alongwith other communication within the territorial jurisdiction i.e Patiala. The case law citied by the ld. counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Hon’ble State Commission in para no.1 had only discussed the facts of the case.
7. In Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has  elaborately discussed that where the complaint can be filed on the basis of arising of cause of action, relevant part of the judgment is reproduced; “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]”
8. In the case of Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s.Automotives Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.2290 of 2012 decided on 19/2/2013 and in another case M/s.Stan Auto Pvt.Ltd Vs Beant Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission,Punjab in FA No.881 of 2012 decided on 30.9.2013. In all the abovesaid judgments the view taken by the Hon’ble Courts are that jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of actual residential, business and working place of OP. In all the aforementioned judgments the law point with regard to the jurisdiction are similar in nature.
9. We are of the considered view that no cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the dispute in question arose at Jalandhar and the request for refund alongwith the interest was rejected by the OP at Jalandhar. Simply because the complainant had deposited the form alongwith initial payment in Bank situated at Patiala, will not entitle the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Courts this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint.  Hence we direct that the present complaint be returned to the complainant, so that the complainant can seek the redressal of his grievances before the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction.

A copy of the complaint be retain

                       Member                                President