Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.991 of 2009 was allowed and OPs were directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1.50 lacs alongwith litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OPs were made liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the filing of the complaint i.e. 15.7.2009 till payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that attracted by the advertisement given by OPs (who were earlier working in the name of M/s In Time Promoters Pvt. Ltd.), the complainant booked a residential flat in their future township project Kings Bory at TDI City Kundli (Haryana) and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- through demand draft dated 12.4.2006. The OPs were required to allot the flat to the complainant within one year of the deposit of the amount but as he was not given allotment for a long period of 28 months, he served a legal notice dated 3.9.2008. The OPs instead of allotting the residential flat falsely issued letter dated 20.9.2008 alleging that due to default in making payment of the outstanding amount by the complainant, the allotment had been cancelled vide letter dated 24.6.2008 and as per policy of the company, refund of only 50% of the booking amount amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- could be made subject to surrender of original allotment letter. The complainant then contacted OPs at their Delhi office as well as regional office at Chandigarh, but they flatly refused to refund the entire amount. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 4. OPs contested the complaint and filed written reply inter-alia stating therein that as no cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh,so as such the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter. On merits, it was pleaded that in pursuance of the deposit of the booking amount by the complainant for the project of the OPs at Kundli, demand was made to make payment of installments but he failed to do so which led to the cancellation of the booking and forfeiture of 50% of the booking amount. It was specifically denied that OPs had any branch office at Chandigarh. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the file. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant/complainant is that the complainant had deposited Rs.3.00 lacs with OPs but the learned Forum under some misconception mentioned in the impugned order that a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs had been returned to the complainant whereas OPs had never refunded the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs to the complainant at any point of time and inadvertently the facts of another case had crept in the present case the facts of which were almost similar. However, on the other hand the learned counsel for OPs vehemently argued that infact the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh whereas OPs had no branch office at Chandigarh. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submission putforth on behalf of the parties. No doubt that in this matter the original principal amount to be refunded was Rs.3.00 lacs. During the course of arguments, it was fairly agreed that out of the aforesaid total amount not even a single penny has so far been refunded to the complainant by OPs. It appears that the learned District Forum has inadvertently taken the view that half of the amount out of the aforesaid total amount of Rs.3.00 lacs has been refunded . 8. Be that as it may, we refrain ourselves from expressing our opinion on the merits of the case pertaining to the amount to be refunded at this stage because from the very beginning the preliminary objection is being raised by OPs regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Chandigarh. No doubt that OPs had not filed appeal against the impugned order but we are of the considered opinion that the question of law can be taken by any of the parties at any stage. Here in the instant appeal before us, the learned counsel for OPs again has raised the legal issue of territorial jurisdiction and the same could not be rebutted on any sound footing. 9. Before we proceed further, it is pertinent to mention here that complainant himself in the heading of the complaint mentioned the head office of OPs at New Delhi whereas the office of Branch Manager at Chandigarh. Though this aforesaid second fact regarding the location of branch office is denied by OPs but still presuming the location of the branch office at Chandigarh that would also not make out territorial jurisdiction to the District Forum at Chandigarh, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the proposed flat to be constructed was at TDI City, Kundli, District Sonepat in Haryana. It is further apparent that the booking amount of Rs.3 lacs was sent by complainant after getting the demand draft No.017843 dated 12.4.2006 drawn on Bank of India, Ambala city. This draft is shown to have been sent to New Delhi and ultimately the receipt of the said amount was also received from Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. , 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. There is nothing on the file which could show that any part of cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh. Simply by being situated a branch office of OPs at Chandigarh, in the absence of any cause of action having arisen at Chandigarh, territorial jurisdiction cannot be made out at Chandigarh. It has been so observed in the latest case law of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1)RCR (civil) 1 by observing that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action had arisen and ‘cause of action’ means bundle of facts which give rise to a right or liability. Thus, in the instant case simply branch office at Chandigarh without any cause of action having arisen here would not confer any jurisdiction upon the District Forum at Chandigarh. 10. In this view of our above discussion, this appeal is hereby dismissed holding that the District Consumer Forum at Chandigarh in fact had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint filed by complainant. Hence, complaint is also dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. 11. Before parting with this order, we in the given facts and circumstances deem it appropriate to give liberty to the complainant to file his complaint before the appropriate Forum for Redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. However, time consumed in pursuing this matter before the District Forum as well as this Commission may not be considered towards the point of limitation. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
