Haryana

StateCommission

A/3/2015

L.I.C.HOUSING FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHESH GANDHI - Opp.Party(s)

O.P.NARANG

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.03 of  2015

Date of the Institution: 01.01 2015

Date of Decision: 20.07.2016

 

L.I.C.Housing Finance Limited Ist Floor, Narayan Complex, Chottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak (Haryana) through its Manager.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

1.Mahesh Gandhi s/o Sh.Pokhar Dass Gandhi, r/o House No.171, Mohallan Kalan, near Cloth Market, Sonepat (Haryana).

2.Rakesh Chandna c/o Chandna Associates Shop No.6, P.P. Complex Atlas Road, Sonepat (Haryana).

 

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.O.P.Narang, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    None for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Surender Gaur, Advocate counsel for respondent                         No.2.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant that to construct house he approached opposite party (O.P.) No.1  for loan through O.P.No.2 and submitted application dated 08.06.2011  alongwith cheque No.449079 for Rs.1103/-. O.P. No.2 sanctioned the loan of Rs.8/- lakhs vide letter dated 23.06.2011 and asked him to fulfill certain formalities. He deposited sale deeds and fees of Rs.3309 with O.P.No.1, as mentioned in the complaint. He requested O.P.No.2 to release loan amount, but, the matter was put off under one pretext or the other. Lateron, sale deeds were lost during transit from Area Office to Head Office and notice to this effect was published in the newspaper ‘Punjab Kesari’ dated 10.10.2012. As O.Ps. did not release loan amount, he borrowed money from other persons @ 24 % per annum. Due to this reason, construction of the house was also delayed. Had the loan been sanctioned he would have been entitled to income tax rebate. O.Ps. be directed to return original sale deeds, the amount deposited by him, Rs.5 lakhs as loss due to high interest, rental value, loss of material and increased of cost construction etc.  and Rs.1 lakh for harassment and mental agony etc.

2.                         Both the O.Ps. filed joint reply denying the case of the complainant and alleged that construction upto D.P.C  leval was to be raised by the complainant from his own sources and thereafter the loan was to be released. His file was sent to regional office, Delhi on 17.09.2011 through courier for disbursement of loan, but, when loan was not disbursed, regional office was approached and it came to notice that the file was never delivered there and was lost in between.  DDR No.76 dated 17.10.2011 was got recorded by courier agent and notice to General Public was also given through News Paper dated 10.10.2012. There was no fault on their part qua the loss of documents. The complainant was asked to get property transferred in favour of his wife so that original gift deed/sale deed changed with them for creation of equitable mortgage, but, he failed to get the same transferred. They were ready to make the expenses  for further transfer of property.  Objections about territorial jurisdiction was also raised on the ground that office of O.P.No.2 was situated at Rohtak and no cause of action accrued at Sonepat. It was also alleged that complaint was not maintainable in the present form be dismissed.

3.                          After hearing both the parties, learned counsel learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (“in short  “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, the respondents jointly and severally are  hereby directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.Seventy thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment, under the head of litigation expenses and for inflation of cost of building material.

They are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.62000/-  (Rs.Sixty two thousand) which the complainant has to pay as rent only due to the fault and negligence on the part of the respondents.

The respondents are further directed to make the payment of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.twenty seven thousands) as if the loan amount would have been disbursed to the complainant, then the complainant could have taken the benefit of income tax rebate, but to the deficient services, the complainant failed to get the income tax rebate.

Further the respondents are directed to make the payment of Rs.6000/- and Rs.4412/- (six  thousands and Rs.four thousands four hundred twelve) as the amount of Rs.6000/- incurred by the complainant for getting the site plan approved from the concerned department andRs.4412/- incurred by the complainant as application money and proceeding fee, has been wasted unnecessarily due to deficient services rendered by the respondents”.

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-O.P. No.2 has preferred this appeal.

5.                          None appeared on behalf of O.P.No.1 even after a long wait upto 2 P.M., so arguments were heard in his absence and file was perused.

6.                          As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that O.Ps. raised the objection about territorial jurisdiction  before learned District Forum, Sonepat but this point was not discussed by this Forum.

7.                         In the present case the complainant has miserably failed to show that any document was executed at Sonepat or any cause of action accrued at this place.

8.                          Such controversy has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case cited as Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP), wherein it was held that:-

“Incidence of fire in the appellant’s godown at Ambala –Complaint claiming compensation from the respondent allowed by the State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh – National Commission set aside the said order accepting the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the State Commission, Union Territory had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint –Hence, the present appeal –Admittedly no cause of action arose at Chandigarh – Insurance policy taken at Ambala, fire broke out in the godown at Ambala, and the claim for compensation also made at Ambala –Cause of action arose in 1999 and the complaint regarding the same filed in 2000- Amendment to Section 17(2) not to apply as the amended Section came into force with effect from 15.3.2003 – Contention that the respondent-insurance company having a branch office at Chandigarh, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh under the amended Section 17(2) rejected as unacceptable –It would have led to absurd consequences of bench hunting, meaning thereby that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a complaint in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India –Cause of action having arisen at Ambala, the State Commission, Haryana alone to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Impugned order of the National Commission agreed with –Appeal dismissed.”

In para Nos.3 and 4 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“3. ……………On appeal, the NCDRC allowed the appeal of the respondent herein on the ground that the Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC.”

“4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus, no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.”

 

In para No.9 and 10 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“9.     ……….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.

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

The above said judgement is fully applicable in the present case.  In view of above discussion, the District Forum Sonepat had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.  When District Forum, Sonepat was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgement without jurisdiction amounts to nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.

9.                          As a sequal to above discussion impugned order dated 19.08.2014 is set aside and appeal is allowed.

10.                        Complainant may be given the benefit of the time consumed during the proceedings of this complaint for the computation of period for limitation in subsequent proceedings, if any, as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

11.                        The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and verification.

 

July,20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench