This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby its complaint bearing No.1345/2009 was dismissed. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant booked one flat with OPs on making part payment of Rs.5.00 lacs vide receipt dated 4.4.2006 on the assurance given by OPs in the meeting which took place on 4.4.2006 at Hotel North Park, Panchkula that the flat would be handed over by the end of six months. The complainant being dealer of OP Company had brought many other investors/buyers who also booked flats with OPs only under the assurance that the flats would be delivered to them by the end of six month. However, when complainant received Flat Buyer Agreement from OPs, the terms & conditions stipulated therein were totally contrary to the assurance as given by OPs at the time of booking the flat and as per said agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given within 1½ years instead of 6 months. The complainant raised protest and refused to sign the said buyers agreement and sought refund of its amount but it was not refunded. In January, 2008 complainant was asked to make payment of balance amount but upon visiting the site it was found that there was no development nor any construction work was done by OPs. Ultimately the complainant was asked to give in writing that it had no objection if the money was refunded as it was also the dealer of OPs. The complainant vide letter dated 20.8.2008 gave no objection for canceling the booking and refunding the amount. The said letters was also given to other buyers, who booked the flats with OPs through the complainant as dealer of OPs. The complainant again received another letter dated 27.1.2009 from OPs for signing the Flat Buyers Agreement but complainant insisted for refund of the booking amount but to no effect. It was alleged that even after the lapse of 2½ years from the date of booking of the flat, OPs failed to complete the project. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the amount alongwith costs and compensation. . 3. On the other hand, OPs contested the complaint before the District Forum and filed reply inter-alia stating therein that OPs never gave any promise to handover the possession of the Flat within six months but instead the construction of the flat was to be completed within a period of 36 months of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat was located with a grace period of 6 months on receipt of sanction of building plans etc. The construction at the site had commenced but on account of the economic meltdown which was a circumstance beyond the control of OPs, the construction process became slow. However, the complainant was protected against the delay in completion of flat in terms of Clause 10 (C) of the Agreement as he was to be paid compensation for the delayed period. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissed the complaint being without any merit. Aggrieved against the said order, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the construction was to be completed within six months and thereafter possession of the constructed flat was to be handed over but respondents have failed to abide by their assurance and promise given at the time of accepting the booking amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. In this way, respondents were alleged to be deficient in providing service as well as indulging in unfair trade practice. This contention has been repelled by learned counsel for respondents. In addition to that, a question of territorial jurisdiction was also raised as no cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh in this case. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and find the aforesaid point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as there is no admissible document or any convincing material on the file which could show that the constructed flat was to be handed over within six months after accepting the booking amount, as alleged in the complaint. Not only that, appellant in fact being a dealer of respondents was also indulging in commercial transaction as rightly held by the learned District Forum in para-8 of the impugned order, which reads as under ; “It is admitted by the complainant in para number 7 of the complaint that it is a dealer of the OP and a number of persons had booked their flats through the complainant being a dealer. The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the flats were booked in order to sell it at a higher price and it was therefore a commercial transaction. The complainant itself admitted that it is a dealer and number of persons had booked their flats through him. Harish Gupta and another have also filed a similar complaint which is being decided through this order, in which also the flat was booked through the complainant. Since it was a commercial transaction for the present complainant, the complaint therefore does not lie because it would not be covered under the definition of a consumer.” 7. A perusal of the observations incorporated in the aforesaid para of the impugned order and other material placed on the file also goes a longway to show that even otherwise District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in issue, inasmuch-as the project was launched at Panchkula i.e. within the State of Haryana and the Head Office of respondents was also situated at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. There might be some branch office of respondents at Chandigarh but no cause of action or part thereof is shown to have taken place at Chandigarh within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum or State Commission of U.T.Chandigarh. 8. In this view of our foregoing discussion and in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 9. However, before parting with this order, it is observed that the appellant/complainant would be at liberty to knock at the door of the appropriate forum for seeking redressal of its grievance, in accordance with law. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
