STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.127 of 2009)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 04.03.2009

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 15.12.2010

Sh. Dilpreet Singh Gill son of Sh. Harbeant Singh resident of House No.217, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

1.      M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: 6^th Floor, “Arunchal”, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001 through its Managing Director.

2.      Sh. Pradeep Jain, Managing Director, M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: 6^th Floor, “Arunchal”, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

3.      Sh. Kanwaldeep Singh, Senior Manager, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., SCO No.1, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

4.      Sh. Yogesh Kharbanda, DGM (Commercial), M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: 6^th Floor, “Arunchal”, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

5.       Sh. Sunil Goyal, G.S.C Estate, SCO No.3016, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

6.      Sh. Mukesh Mehandiratta, Manager Commercial, M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: 6^th Floor, “Arunchal”, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

              ....Respondents/OPs.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE  PRITAM  PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS.  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        S.  JAGROOP   SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Anuj Raura, Advocate for the appellants.

                        Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.

                        Respondent No.5 already exparte.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                     This is complainant’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.1.2009, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by him against the OPs was dismissed.

2.                     The complainant/appellant on being approached by Sh. Sunil Goyal (OP No.5) agreed to book a flat and on 4.4.2006, sent a letter in this regard along with a cheque of Rs.5 Lacs vide Receipt (Annexure P-1). As per the assurance of OP No.5, the possession of the flat was to be delivered in the month of September/October 2006 after receiving the balance amount, however, the possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant. According to the complainant, he received a letter dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) regarding allotment of flat No.T4-604 in Parsavnath Royale, Panchkula but when he enquired about handing over of possession, no positive response was received from the side of OPs. The complainant also received letter dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-4) requiring him to sign the agreement for purchase of the flat enclosing therewith scheme regarding payment of the amount. Realizing that OPs failed to adhere to the commitments, the complainant moved an application on 29.1.2007 (Annexure P-5) requesting them to refund the amount of Rs.5 Lacs deposited by him at the time of booking of the said flat. Subsequently, another application dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure P-6) was moved by the complainant requesting for the refund but to no avail. Finally, a legal notice dated 19.4.2007 (Annexure P-7) was served by the complainant upon the OPs but in reply to that notice, OPs raised a demand of Rs.3,67,750/- for the cancellation of the allotment. Left with no alternative, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.5 Lacs along with interest @18% per annum, Rs.5 Lacs as compensation for mental torture, harassment and mental agony besides Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.                     The complaint was opposed by OPs No.1 to 4 and 6, who in their joint written statement took a preliminary objection that the District Fora at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter as the immovable property in question was situated in Panchkula (Haryana) outside the Union Territory of Chandigarh. On merits, it was pleaded that the amount of Rs.5 Lacs taken at the time of booking the flat was the earnest money and the same was non-refundable in the event of the complainant not making further payment for purchase of the immovable property. It was pleaded that the complainant by entering into an agreement with them prevented OP No.1 from selling the said immovable property to some other person. As per the OPs, the complainant failed to perform his part of the contract, therefore, they were not at fault in committing any deficiency in service. It was next asserted that no assurance was ever given to the complainant that the allotment of the flat would be made within six months from the date of receipt of the earnest money. As per OPs, according to Clause 5-A of the Flat Buyer Agreement, in the eventuality of cancellation of the earnest money being 15% of the basic price would be forfeited and the balance, if any, would be refundable without interest. It was mentioned that the complainant had paid Rs.5 Lacs whereas 15% of the price of the flat comes to Rs.8,67,750/- and as such, he was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,67,750/- in case he wanted to get the allotment cancelled.

4.                     OP No.5 in his affidavit took almost the identical objections as taken by OPs No.1 to 4 and 6 in their reply.

5.                     Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as stated in the opening para of this order.

7.                     The complainant has assailed the impugned order through this appeal.

8.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9.                     The learned counsel for the OPs has contended that in fact, the learned District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. He referred to the receipt (Annexure P-1) vide which the amount of Rs.5 Lacs was deposited by the complainant, this receipt was issued from New Delhi. The learned counsel referred to the address of OP No.1 with whom the earnest money of Rs.5 Lacs was deposited, it also has its Head Office at New Delhi. Annexure P-3 is the allotment letter and Annexure P-2 is the Statement of Unit allotted to the complainant, which were also issued from New Delhi. There is no dispute about it that the flat allotted to the complainant is situated at Panchkula in the State of Haryana. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant referred to in Para No.2 of the complaint, in which it is mentioned that OP No.5 contacted the complainant at his residence in House No.217, Sector 36-A, and persuaded him to purchase the flat. The complainant claims to have met Sh. Kanwaldeep Singh, (OP No.3) who is the Senior Manager of OP No.1 having his office in Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. It is argued that the cheque of Rs.5 Lacs was given by the complainant at Chandigarh to OP No.3 and therefore, when the payment had been made at Chandigarh, the District Fora at Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction to try this complaint. The learned counsel for the OPs argued that in fact the payment was made from Ludhiana as is clear form Annexure P-1/A, which contains the copy of the cheque for Rs.5 Lacs drawn on  Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.16-17, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana and the payment was made at Delhi as is clear from Annexure P-1. There is no such document to suggest, if the cheque was handed over to OP No.3 nor any receipt has been obtained from OP No.3 for the delivery of the cheque aforesaid. In this manner, neither the amount was paid at Chandigarh nor the property, which is the subject matter of the dispute, is located at Chandigarh, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The story propounded by the complainant in Paras No.2 and 3 of the complaint that the payment was made at Chandigarh is not proved from any document. The OPs have taken the objection in Para No.7 of the written reply alleging that the District Forum does not the jurisdiction to try this complaint. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the complainant, if any payment was made at Chandigarh. Needless to mention that the existence of Branch Office of OP No.1 at Chandigarh where no cause of action took place, would not confer jurisdiction on the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh.

10.                   The learned District Forum, therefore, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint for want of jurisdiction. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The complainant would be at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Consumer Fora having jurisdiction to try the same.

11.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

15^th December 2010.

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.127 of 2009)

Argued by:          Sh. Anuj Raura, Advocate for the appellants.

                        Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 & 6.

                        Respondent No.5 already exparte.

Dated the 15^th day of December, 2010.

ORDER

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the complainant has been dismissed with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Consumer Fora having jurisdiction to try the same.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER