Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/349/2016

Neelam Kushwah - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aashiyana Group - Opp.Party(s)

sh. Lalit

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

                   Neelam Kushwah  Vs      M/s Aashiyana Group of Promoters

 

Present        Shri Ramit Kumar Lalit, Adv for the complainant.

ORDER

                   Arguments on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Superintendent; Foreign Post Office Vs Indo Lhasa Curious in Civil Appeal No.6121/2001 decided on 07.06.2011 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, P.V.Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by GPA Laxmi Narayana Reddy & Anr Vs P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors etc in Civil Appeal No.5254/2006 decided on 13.02.2015 (SC), M/s Kapoor Saws Manufacturing Company & Anr Vs M/s Crown Saw Blades Mgf & Ano in RFA No.17 of 2005, decided on 22.05.2012 (Delhi High Court) and Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd  in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 (SC)

2                 After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the disputed property is situated at Jaipur under the project of the OP namely “Aashiyana”. Moreover, Plot Buyer’s Agreement between the complainant and the OP was executed at Jaipur. The complainant has not produced any receipt of payment showing that the payment was made within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, mere having branch office at Gurgaon will not confer territorial jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd  in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 (supra) wherein it has been held that

“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]

Therefore, in the instant case the cause of action would be deemed to have been accrued at Jaipur and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and thus, for want of territorial jurisdiction  the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the complaint is hereby dismissed.  Copy of order be sent to the complainant free of costs.

 File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                               (Subhash Goyal)

21.06.2016                                                                                                 President,

                                                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                        Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member