Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1395/2017

SMT. RICHA AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV SINGH

07 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :07.09.2017

Date of Decision :08.09.2017

Complaint No.1395/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Smt. Richa Agarwal,

W/o. Shri Sanjeev Agarwal,

R/o. F-99, IInd Floor,

Nariaina Vihar,

New Delhi-110028.                                                                                     ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

1. M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd.,

Having its registered Office at :

Sector-128, Noida, UP-201304.                                                  ….Opposite Party No.1

 

2. M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.,

Having its registered office at:

Sector-128, Noida, UP-201304.

 

Having its branch office at:

63, JA House, Basant Lok,

Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.                                               …..Opposite Party No.2

 

3. Mr. Manoj Gaur,

Managing Director,

Sector-128, Noida,

Uttar Pradesh-201304.                                                                  ….Opposite Party No.3

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

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

Present:        Shri    Akansha, counsel for complainant.

                        None for the respondent.

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

          Point for consideration and adjudication  in this complaint filed before this Commission by Smt. Richa Agarwal resident of Delhi, for short complainant, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Vs. Jaypee Associates Ltd., having their registered office at Noida, UP, hereinafter as referred to as OP is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint  and if so whether this Commission can issue a direction to the  OP who has its registered office at a place other than Delhi.

 

          Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the complainant are these.

 

          The complainant, on the launching of the project by the OP in the name of “KRESCENT HOMES” in Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh made the booking of a flat in the said project vide application form dated 07.08.2011 and booking amount to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid. Provisional allotment letter was issued on 19.10.2011, allotting the complainant of an unconstructed unit no.KRH0120901 in “Krescent House” at Jaypee Greens, Noida, Uttar Pradesh having super area of 1230 sq. ft.

 

          The complainant had approached the Tata Capital House Finance Ltd. for availing loan by mortgaging the flat and for this purpose Quadripartite Agreement was executed on 02.12.2011. The complainant made the payment from time to time to the OPs as and when demanded and till the date the complaint is filed an amount of Rs.48,00,000/- has already been paid. The possession was agreed to be handed over by April, 2015. This was however not done.

 

          The complainant desired to know the progress in the project but OP never brought to his  notice the progress made. The complainant was subjected to further harassment on account of the fact that he had to pay the EMI to the finance company from whom the loan was procured by mortgaging the property. Since no reply or response was forthcoming from the OP and finding himself pushed to the wall, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission praying the for relief as under:-

 

1.Direct the OPs to handover the possession of the flat bearing no.KRH120901 in “KRESCENT HOMES” at Jaypee Greens, Noida, UP and pay interest @24% per annum on the sum of Rs.48,08,501.32 which is the amount deposited by the complainant with the OPs from the date of making the said payments against the loss suffered by the complainant for the interest charged by the financial institution towards the loan availed.

 

2.Direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental trauma, harassment and hardships suffered by the complainant; and

 

3. Direct the OPs to pay a sum  of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of litigation; and

 

4. Pass any other or further relief in favour of the complainant and against the OPs, which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

          The complaint was listed before us for admission hearing on 07.09.2017 when the ld. Counsel for the complainant advanced his argument. We have perused the records of the case. In the first instance, prima facie, we felt that the head office of the OP being at Noida and the transaction having always been done at a place other then Delhi, this Commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this complaint being barred under the provisions of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said provisions of law posits  as under:-

 

Section 17(2)

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a)     the opposite party or each of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b)     any of the Ops where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the Ops who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case  may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

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

 

          On a plain reading of the aforesaid statute it would be clear that the cause of action in the matter decides and determines the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. Secondly, the place where the opposite parties resides also accounts for the decision regarding territorial jurisdiction.

 

          In the given case the Head Office of the OP is at NOIDA and agreement  was executed in Uttar Pradesh. Consequence the cause of action in the matter would be deemed to have arisen in Uttar Pradesh.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Soni Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company – IV  (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) – has held

 

“The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complainant could have been filed at Chandigarh. We regret we cannot agree with the ld. Counsel. In out opinion an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequences. If the contention of the ld. Counsel is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action  has arisen  at Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim/ petition even in Tamil Nadu/ Gujrat / or anywhere in India where branch office of the company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. In our opinion therefore Branch office would mean office where the cause of action arose……

          The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Srei Equipment  Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Natrajan – III(2016) CPJ 389 (NC) – has held –

“Merely because OP has a branch at Salem, complainant does not get jurisdiction to file a complaint at Salem. Complaint can be filed only at Kolkatta where cause of action arose.”

          In yet another case the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lasa Footwear – IV (2012) CPJ 821 BC held:-

“Expression branch office in the amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office, where cause of action has arisen.”

 

          We have peruse the record and note that the head office of the OP is at Noida. The cause of action also arose at Noida as the transaction has done there. The Agreement  was also executed at  Noida.  Cheque was also drawn on HDFC Bank, Noida. This goes to establish that the cause of action in the matter arose in Noida.

          Having regard to the discussion above we reach to an inescapable conclusion that the place where the cause of action arose is the place where the complaint can be filed. In the given case the cause of action having arisen at NOIDA where the Head office of the OP is situated and the agreement was executed, this Commission, enjoying the jurisdiction only in the vicinity of Delhi, lacks the territorial jurisdiction to hear or to entertain the complaint. If that be the case we are handicapped hearing this case and accordingly order to return the complaint to file it before the appropriate Fora for the redressal of his grievances.

          We order accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost as statutorily required.

          File be consigned to records.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                            MEMBER (JUDICIAL)