Delhi

New Delhi

CC/3/2016

Alok Sethia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Metcalf Properties Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 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. 03/2016                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Alok Sethia

S/o Sh. B.M. Sethia

5, Janki Shah Road Hastings,

Kolkata-700022

Delhi office at:-

Flat no. 6, Mahalaxmi Market,

3^rd floor, Bhagirath Place,

Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006                                                                          ……..COMPLAINANT

Versus

 

 M/s Metcalfe Properties Pvt. Ltd.

 Rashtriya Tower, 38, Rani Jhansi Road,

 New Delhi-110055    

                                                                                                ……..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 flat measuring 250 Sq. Yds. @ 3450/- per sq. yds. in their uncoming project in Amritsar and the OP took the advanced amount of Rs. 2,67,500/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- against booking of the plot vide receipt no. 1891 dated 03/05/2006 and receipt no. 1341 dated 03/06/2005. It is further alleged that complainant had also deposited further instalments in different occasions that make the total consideration amount of Rs. 11,78,500/- as per details below:-

Date	Receipt no.	Amount
03/06/2005	1341	02,50,000/-
03/05/2006	1891	02,67,500/-
29/09/2012	2411	04,10,687/-
04/12/2012	2503	02,70,313/-
Total		11,78,500/-

It is further alleged that after receiving the entire amount the OP requested the complainant to submit the originals allotment letter and original receipts for the registration of the plot in their name and accordingly, complainant vide letter dated 19/11/2014 submitted all the documents received from the OP and requested them to inform the date of registry.

It is further alleged that despite giving all the necessary documents as asked by the OP. The OP failed to gave the possession of the plot and OP had also not refunded the deposited amount to the complainant, hence this complaint.  

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, 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 policy in question was issued from the office of the OP at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, whereas the correspondence/communication between the complainant and OP took place from the Rani Jhansi Road office of the OP.  In other words neither the office of the OP 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 National   Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis. Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

5. The complainant has placed on record, the copy of the documents which clearly shows that the entire cause of action pertains to Rani Jhansi Road office of the OP. So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110034 would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  

6. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  free of cost as  statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 10/01/2020.

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

         PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                   (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                MEMBER