2.         In fact appeal No.305/2009   has been filed by complainant seeking modification of the impugned order dated 7.5.2009 to the extent that the directions be issued to OPs to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.3.00 lacs instead of Rs.1.50 lacs alongwith interest @ 12%  whereas appeal No. 340/2010 has been filed by  M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for setting aside the impugned order. Since, in both these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding   these    appeals by this common judgment.

3.         In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus ;

4.          OPs contested the complaint and filed reply inter-alia stating therein that the complainant was issued a provisional allotment letter dated 2.3.2007 which was unattended and consequently the OP-1 was forced to issue the cancellation letter. It was stated that the cost of the flat booked was Rs.22,58,850/- and the complainant was liable to make the periodic payments and it was due to the fact that the complainant did not make the payment of the demanded installments OPs were forced to cancel the allotment. It was pleaded  that the development and construction of the project depends upon the timely and regular payment of installments by the allottees and in case the payments were not received, the builder would be left with no other option but to cancel the allotment and to allot it to someone else.  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. This is how feeling aggrieved, Complainant as well as Opposite parties have filed their respective appeals.

6.       We have heard   learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the file.   The main point urged on behalf of  the complainant    is that although the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in toto  yet instead of granting the refund of deposited amount of Rs.3.00 lacs as prayed for in the complaint granted only Rs.1.50 lacs under the impression that 50% of the amount i.e. 1.50 lacs had already been refunded to the complainant whereas infact OPs had sent a photocopy of the cheque No.380116 dated 14.6.2008 for Rs.1.50 lacs but neither the original cheque nor its amount was received by the complainant. On the other hand, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of OPs that the property in question is situated at Kundli, the office of OPs is at Delhi and there is no branch office at Chandigarh, therefore, the Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. He further argued that in fact M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. was a separate company and the same was developing project in Punjab and had a office at Chandigarh but OPs had no branch office at Chandigarh and no cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh, so, the District Forum at Chandigarh was not competent to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1)RCR (civil) 1.

7.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions 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.          It is pertinent to mention here that from the very beginning the preliminary objection is being raised by OPs regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Chandigarh. Though  the fact regarding  location of branch office  at Chandigarh 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, application annexure C-1 alongwith a cheque of Rs.3.00 lacs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector-26-D, Chandigarh payable at all CBS branches was  sent by complainant to OPs - Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 9,Kasturba Gandhi, Marg, New Delhi (previous name of OPs). The  receipt  annexure C-2 was issued by OPs from   their head office, New Delhi  of having received the said cheque.   Annexure C-3 is letter dated 15.5.2008 written by complainant to OP at New Delhi address. Letters annexure C-4 & C-6 addressed to complainant were also written by OP from New Delhi. There is no documentary evidence to prove that any cause of action had arisen at Chandigarh. The only bald assertion of the complainant that the payment was made at Chandigarh office without any cogent evidence does not construe any cause of action having arisen at Chandigarh. Further, 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 held by Hon’ble Apex court in the latest case law in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra)  where  it has been laid down that expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which give rise to a right or liability and  the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action had arisen.