Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/152/2016

Dr. Manju Rakesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pansheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinet Shrma

08 Mar 2016

ORDER

                        Dr. Manju Rakesh       Vs        M/s Panchsheel Colonizer

 

Present            Shri Vineet Sharma, Adv for the complainant.

 

ORDER

                        Heard on the admissibility of complaint.

                        The complainant has alleged that she has booked one Plot No. B-122 measuring 250 sq. yds @ Rs.2,000/- per sq. yd in Panchsheel Park, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Initially, this plot was allotted to Shri Mahesh Gupta, R/o H.No.3454, Sector-23, Gurgaon and later on it was transferred/endorsed in the name of the complainant. The complainant started making payment as per schedule of payment and made a payment of Rs.75,000/- on 25.01.2007 vide receipt No.03011  dated 25.01.2007. On 27.02.2007 a Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between the parties. The complainant also deposited Rs.75,000/- as Preferential Location Charges  vide Receipt No.05619 dated 03.07.2007. Later on a sum of Rs.1 Lac was also deposited by the complainant with the OP vide Receipt No.07852 dated 12.03.2008. However, the location of the plot has been changed and the new Plot allotted to the complainant was situated at a far distance from the national highway. Lastly, the complainant lost faith in the project of the OP and asked for refund of her hard earned money with interest but of no use. The complainant prayed that the OPs be directed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the property which was initially allotted to her and if the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the same  then to refund the entire amount deposited by her with the OPs.

2                      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record available on file. In the present complaint the complainant has impleaded M/s Panchsheel Colonizers Private Ltd through its Corporate office at Jaipur and Branch Office at Qutub Plaza, DLF City-1, Gurgaon but there is no document on the file which was issued by Branch Office of the OP at Gurgaon and in absence of the same it cannot be said that any cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the OP at Gurgaon. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd 2010 CTJ 2 (SC) (CP) this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of costs.

                        File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

                                                Member                       Member                       President,

                                                                                                                        DCDRF, GGN

                                                                                                                        08.03.2016