Delhi

New Delhi

CC/365/2016

Ms.Vriti Kochar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ganpathi Builders - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

CC/365/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Vriti Kochar D/o Sh. Navneet Kochar

G-1303, Pearl Court, Ramprastha Green,

Vaishali- Ghaziabad (U.P.)                                                            COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/s Ganpati Builders

Through its Director Shri Ritesh Tiwari

702, New Delhi House,

72, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001                                                                      OPPOSITY PARTY                                                   

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

          Shri Bariq Ahmad , Member

          Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                             Dated of Institution :02.06.2016

                                                                             Date of Order         :19.05.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service against opposite party (in short OP). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Complainant and her younger sister Paridhi Kochar jointly booked a plot admeasuring 122 Sq Yards, in ISKON CITY-II SAINA VRINDAVAN (U.P.) under the scheme floated by opposite party and paid Rs. 20,283/- vide cheque no. 069911 drawn on SBI. It is further stated that the base price of the plot was Rs. 4,05,650/-. It is also stated that the Complainant made the further payment on various dates of Rs. 1,59,500/-. Thus total amount paid was Rs. 1,79,783/-.
2. It is also alleged that at the time of booking OP had assured that project will be developed within 6 to 9 months from the date of booking, but till filing of complaint there is no demarcation of plots and no development of the project. It is also alleged that Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP dated 25.04.2016, but no reply was filed neither OP refunded the amount deposited by the Complainant. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund amount of Rs. 1,79,783/- with interest @ 18%, and litigation expenses.
3. OP contested the complaint, Written Statement was filed taking preliminary objection, Complainant is not maintainable as this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as the plot in question falls in the jurisdiction of U.P. It was also stated that there was no deficiency of service on part of OP. It was further stated that Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, Complaint is barred by limitation. It was denied that there is no development of the project even after lapse of 4 years from the date of booking. It was also denied that Complainant was entitled to recover any amount from OP. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Complainant thereafter filed rejoinder reiterating therein the averments in the complaint.
4. Both parties filed their evidence by affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction and placed reliance on a decision in, the connected matter titled Mrs. Neeru Ahuja Vs. Ms. Ganpathi Builders, dated 20.02.2022, wherein it was held,

“On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.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 Ld.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]

5.  It is to be noted that section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, which related to jurisdiction of the district forum is as under:-

 

11.       Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 3 [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local 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, actually and voluntarily resides or 4 [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 5 [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 6 [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at UP, thus the District Consumer Redressal Forum at UP alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is to be noted that Complainant has not filed any document to show any correspondence took place with OP at the office at Barakhamba Road or cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

6.                In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical’s case(Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. A copy of the order be given to Complainant free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                                           (ADARSH NAIN)           

                     Member                                                                                         Member