Delhi

New Delhi

CC/366/2016

Neeru Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 366/2016                                                                            Dated:

In the matter of:

1.            Mrs. Neeru Ahuja

      W/o Sh. Deep Ahuja

      A-18, Bathla Apartment,

     Plot no. 43, IP Extension,

      Delhi-110092

2.          Mrs. Amju Kochar

    W/o Sh. Navneet Kochar

   G-1303, Pearl Court, Ramprastha Green,

  Vaishali, Ghaziabad (UP)

                                                                                         ……..COMPLAINANT

Versus

 M/s Ganpathi Builders

Through its Director Sheri. Ritesh Tiwari

316, Dreamland

1/18-B, Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi- 110002

                                                                                                ……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP.  The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants booked a plot measuring 111 Sq. Yds. in Iskon City-II, Siana, Brindavan UP, under floating scheme and pay to the OP a sum of Rs. 36,907/- on 16/02/2013 as the booking amount. The complainant made further payments from time to time on various dates and thus made a total deposit of Rs. 01,36,268/-. It was assured by the OP to the complainant at the time of booking that the project will develop within six to nine months from the date of booking. It is further alleged by the complainant that till date there were no development at all even after a lapse of approx. three years from the date of booking. Complainant also sent legal notice dated 25/04/2016 to the OP, but OP neither reply to the legal notice nor refund the deposited amount of the complainant,  hence this complaint.

 

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Barkhamba Road, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action or the office of the OP through which the correspondence had been made is at, Barkhamba Road, New Delhi.

In other words neither the office of the OP through which the correspondence had been made nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

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]

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

 

3.         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 judgement 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. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 20/02/2020

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                 (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                              MEMBER