Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1327/2016

POONAM SINGH & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EARTH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M.K DHINGRA

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments: 21.11.2016

Date of Decision: 23.11.2016

Complaint No. 1327/16

 

In the matter of:

1. Ms. Poonam Singh,

D/o Shri Gajendra Singh Panwar,

R/o 3^rd Floor, L-20, Lane 7,

New Mahavir  Nagar,

New Delhi-110018.

 

2. Ms. Eshita,

D/o Shri Raj Kumar,

R/o 3^rd Floor, L-20, Lane 7,

New Mahavir Nagar,

New Delhi-110018.                                                 ........Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

M/s. Earth Infrastructure Limited,

Regd. Office : 26, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road,

(Near Karol Bagh Metro Station)

New Delhi-110005.                                                             …...............Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The case of the complainants is that they booked apartment no. 1503 of 3 BHK+2T+Study room in ‘Earth Towne’ Plot No.GH-04, Sector-1, Greater Noida, UP for Rs.33,67,075/-.  They paid Rs.11,55,750/- as per details mentioned in para-4 of the complaint. Allotment letter  dated 02.01.2012 was  issued.  The OP has abandoned its project. Complainants sent notice dated 29.02.2016. Now they have prayed for refund of Rs.11,55,750/- alongwith interest amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-, rent amounting to Rs.2,60,000/-, compensation for mental pain and agony amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (total Rs.25,15,750/-). They have also prayed for cost of litigation to the extent of Rs.55,000/-.

 

2. The agreement was executed in UP as the stamp paper is of UP. Copy placed at page-17. The project was also in Greater Noida, UP.

 

3. Counsel for complainants submitted that registered office of the OP is in Delhi.  So this Commission has territorial jurisdiction. There is no distinction between registered office and branch office. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in Soni Surgical Vs. NIC, IV (2009) CPJ 40 that mere location of branch office is not enough. There must be some cause of action or part of cause of action at the place where the company has branch office before court at said place can have jurisdiction.

 

4. The counsel for complainants further submitted that though agreement purports to have been executed in Noida but same was actually executed in registered office in Pusa Road, near Karol Bagh Metro Station, New Delhi.  The said contention  cannot be accepted to contradict the place of execution mentioned in the allotment letter.  In view of the Section 91/92 Indian Evidence Act,

 

5. The counsel for complainant drew my attention towards copy of receipt dated 28.08.2010 which is placed at page-44.  The same contains a clause at the bottom that all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction only. Such clause is not enforceable for cases under Consumer Protection Act as per decision of National Commission in FA-442/10 titled Abhishek Vs. Unitech decided on 18.02.2011.

 

6. Counsel for complainant relied upon the decision in Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs. E.S.P.N.Software India Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1999 MP 271.

 

7. I have gone through the same.  The same does not advance case of the complainant.  That was a case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act.  Perhaps it has been cited only to invoke section 20(c) CPC.  I have already held above that no part of cause of action arose in Delhi and so Section 20(c) CPC does not come to the rescue of the complainant.

 

8. The complaint is returned for presentation to State Commission, UP. 

 

9. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

10. File be consigned to Record Room.  

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

 

245.