Delhi

East Delhi

CC/734/2013

RADHEY SHYAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAJESTIC PRO - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI-92

 

 

CC No.734/2013:

In the Matter of:

Sh. Radhey Shyam Goswami

S/o. Sh. Om Prakash

R/o. House No. II – B/17,Sadhna,

Sector – 2, Vaishali,

Ghaziabad

            Complainant

Vs

 

M/s. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd.

(Through its Managing Director/ Authorised Officer)

Having its Registered Office At:

1/18B, Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi – 110 002

 

Also At:

B – 90, Sector – 63, Noida – 201 301

•  

     

                                                                                              Date of Admission - 27/08/2013  Date of Order          - 29/12/2015

O R D E R

Poonam Malhotra, Member :

The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that lured by the advertisements of the respondents in newspapers the complainant bookedone flat having Super Area 1615 Sq.ft. @ 1500 per Sq.ft. in the proposed Residential Township of the respondent “Melange Jewels” on Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The total Basic Price of the booked flat without discount was Rs.24,22,500/-.  It is alleged that the respondent represented to the General Public including the complainant that it had purchased the land for the said township, obtained the necessary approvals from State Government & competent authorities and the site plan of the said project has been approved.  The complainant submitted the Application Form to the respondent and also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 31/07/2008 vide Cheque No.164754 drawn on PNB against Receipt dated 12/08/2008 issued by the respondent.  He also alleges to have agreed to pay additional Preferential Location Charges to the respondent for allotment of corner green flat. The respondent allotted a Flat No.510 on 5^th Floor in Tower T – 4 of the said Project. The Agreement was executed between the parties but the complainant alleges not to have received it back till date. The respondent had promised to commence the work of construction within 45 days from the date of booking and to deliver the possession of the flat by July, 2011 but in vain.  It was also agreed that if the respondent failed to deliver the possession by July, 2011, it would pay to the complainant penalty @ Rs.5 per Sq.ft. beyond that period.  Though the complainant had opted for a Construction Linked Plan but the respondent raised a demand of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the cost of the booked flat  that was not concordant to the construction undertaken by the respondent.   However, under pressure the complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent vide Receipt No.5546 dated 26/08/2008.  Thus, in all the complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards the booking amount of the flat. Despite a police complaint, repeated requests and visits to the office of the respondent, it has not refunded his booking amount till date to him.  The project is delayed by atleast three years.   Even legal notice dated 16/07/2013 served upon the respondent was of no consequence.  The complainant has prayed for the refund of the booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony meted out by her and Rs.50,000/- as the cost of this litigation.

Respondent appeared in response to the notice issued to it and filed its written version wherein it has raised the pleas of territorial jurisdiction, reference of any dispute between the parties to Arbitration, concealment of material facts, misuse & abuse of the process of law.  It is alleged that the parties to the present complaint are bound by the terms and conditions of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement executed between the parties interse. As such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Rest of the allegations have been denied.

No rejoinder filed by the complainant to rebut the contentions raised by the complainant. Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the parties in support of their respective cases.

Heard the Arguments & perused the record.  During the course of arguments the respondent has also raised the plea of limitation.

Before going into the merits of this case the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this complaint before this Forum has been raised by the respondent.  Since the question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the complaint the same is taken up for decision before going into the merits of the case in hand.  It is a well-established principle of law that the jurisdiction is decided from the averments made in the complaint or the plaint, as the case may be.   In the present complaint the jurisdiction of this Forum is to be culled out from the averments contained in the complaint.   In the present complaint, the complainant has to satisfy this Forum as to how what cause of action had arisen within the territory of Delhi so as to clothe this Forum with jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  In the case in hand, the Project “Melange Jewels” in which the complainant had booked an apartment is on Ajmer Road, Jaipur in Rajasthan.  Neither the Application Form, filed on record as Annexure C- 1 to the complaint,  speak of the place of where it was filled nor the receipts dated 12/08/2008 & 26/08/2008 issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of payments of Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.4,00,000/- respectively from the complainant towards the booking of a flat  in the said Project, copies of which have been placed on record by the complainant as Annexures C – 2 & C- 3 of the complaint, speak of the place of issuance of the said receipts.  Even otherwise, the Application Form shows that it is addressed to its corporate office at Noida, UP.  The only reply tendered by the Ld.Cl. for the complainant to clothe this Forum with jurisdiction is that the Registered Office of the respondent is located in Delhi, as such this Forum will have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  From the facts stated above, it is clear that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territory of the NCT of Delhi so as to confer the Consumer Court at Delhi with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. This has been ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr AIR 2002 SC 126 that mere existence of the Registered Office at a particular place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court/Forum does not ipso facto confer jurisdiction on the Court or the Forum to entertain the complaint filed against the company.  The complainant has not filed on record the receipt of Speed Post/ Courier through which he alleges to have served upon the respondent the Legal Notice dated 16/07/2013 filed on record as Annexure C – 5 with the complaint.  As such the same cannot be taken into consideration for want of evidentiary value.  There is not an iota of evidence which can show that any cause of action has arisen within the Territorial Jurisdiction of NCT Delhi. Further, the complainant has made allegations in the complaint in Para 10 with regard to the filing of a complaint on 21/01/2013 with the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch of the Delhi Police against the respondent company and has also filed along with the complaint proof of filing it.  Any action taken by the concerned Police Department on the said police complaint is not within the domain of the Consumer Forum and it can only be taken care of by the Appropriate Authority on the criminal side as it contains allegations of fraud played by the respondent.  It is well established law that all facts which require evidence, cross-examination and re-examination cannot be tried before the Consumer Forum. The said Police complaint will not give jurisdiction to this Forum to entertain the present complaint. 

Taking into consideration the observations and discussion made supra, we arrive at an inference that no cause of action has arisen within the territory of Delhi so as to confer jurisdiction to this Forum.  In view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to present it before a court of competent jursidiction, if so advised.

Copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                   (N.A.Zaidi)

         Member                                                                                                                          President