Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1094/2017

KANTA TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 28.07.2017

Date of Decision :  08.08.2017

Complaint No. 1094/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mrs. Kanta Tyagi,

C-279, Gagan  Vihar,

Behind Tulsi Niketan,

Sahibabad,

Ghaziabad-201005.

Uttar Pradesh.                                                                                   ........Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

Jaypee Infratech Limited,

Jaiprakash Associates Limited,

“JA House”,

63, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi-110057.                                                                         …….…Opp. Party

 

Complaint No. 1093/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mrs. Sangeeta Tyagi,

F-2, C-201,

Shalimar Garden,

Extn. II,

Sahibabad,

Ghaziabad-201005.

Uttar Pradesh.                                                                                   ........Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

Jaypee Infratech Limited,

Jaiprakash Associates Limited,

“JA House”,

63, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,

New Delhi-110057.                                                                         …….…Opp. Party

 

 

 

CORAM

 

SH. O. P. GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

Present  :   Ms. Ankur Saha,  Counsel for the Complainant.

 

 

PER  :                SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 

Facts of both the cases are identical and accordingly those are being disposed of  by a common order, taking CC No.1094/17 as the lead case.

 

          Mrs. Kanta Tyagi resident of  Ghaziabad, UP has filed the complaint before this Commission u/s 17 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. alleging deficiency of service, praying for relief as under :-

1. To apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant.
2. To pay the complainant a sum of Rs.9,83,097.52 alongwith interest  @18% per annum.
3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the mental agony, financial loss and damages suffered by the Complainant; and
4. To pay Rs.6,81,750/- as compensation on the account of escalation in cost of comparable flat which the complainant must buy after getting refund of money deposited.
5. To award punitive damage upto 10 times of the compensation payable to the complainant on the above grounds.
6. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of preparing and filing of this petition.
7. Or any such orders and reliefs deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Commission in’ view of the facts and circumstances of this case.

          The complainant had booked a apartment with OP vide reference No.25128 at Jaypee Greens Sports City-East, Gautam Budh Nagar.  Provision allotment letter was issued on 30.05.2013 allotted one apartment bearing Unit Reference No.BS201C0701 in Budh Circuit Studios-II Tower-1 at Jaypee Greens Sports City-East, Gautam Budh Nagar with approx. Super Area of 67.3541 Sq. mtrs. for consideration of Rs.20,32,800/-.  The condition as agreed to by the OP in the provisional allotment letter was that the possession of the apartment is expected to be delivered within a period of 30 months. Ultimately latest by 30.11.2018.  Consequently the complainant made the payment as per payment schedule. Last instalment of Rs.7,82,902/- was paid on 29.10.2013 but her claim is that possession of the flat is nowhere near. This matter was listed for hearing on admission before us on 20.08.2017. Ms. Ankur Saha, counsel for complainant appeared and advanced arguments.

We have heard the arguments and perused the record.

          In the first instance we note that this Commission does not enjoy the territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the office space in question is situated at Gurgaon. For this purpose reliance is placed on Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  which 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, actual 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 cause of action, wholly or in part, arises]

The law categorically posits that Commission would enjoy the territorial jurisdiction if cause of action arose in that area. The cause of action in the matter having arisen at Gurgaon by no stretch  of imagination the jurisdiction of this Commission at Delhi can be invoked.

In this connection , the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Soni Surgical Vs. NIC, IV (2009) CPJ 40 have held as under:-

          Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant.  Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17  (2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned 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 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.

          We accordingly order return of the complaint for presentation before appropriate Fora.

A copy of this order duly certified by the Registrar of this Commission may be placed in the other connected case bearing number C-1093/17.

          Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.  A copy of this order may be sent to the District Fora for information.  File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                      (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                              MEMBER (JUDICIAL)