STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

1.   Sh. S.P. Agrawal s/o late Sh. J.P. Agrawal, flat No.276, 2nd Floor, Trishla Home, Peer Muchalla, P.O. Dhakoli, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Panjab (earlier resident of House No.1824, Sector 7C, Chandigarh).

2.  Mr. Amit Agarwal s/o Sh. S.P. Agrawal, Flat No.276, 2nd Floor, Trishla Home, Peer Muchalla, P.O. Dhakoli, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                            ……Appellants

                                       V e r s u s

1.  M/s Unitech Limited, Regd. Office : 6, Community              Center,        Saket, New Delhi through its MD/authorized                representative/Manager.

2.   M/s Unitech Limited, SCO No.189-190-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its authorized Manager/ Authorized representative.

3.   M/s Unitech Limited, Fixed Deposit Division, Unitech              House, L Block, South City-1, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana 

4.   M/s Unitech Limited, Unitech Commercial Tower-2, near      Greenwood City, Sector 45, Gurgaon-122001 (Hry.).

5.   M/s Security Investments Ltd., Cabin No.1, First Floor,  SCO 179-180, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                                                                                  ...Respondents

           Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986    against order dated 15.03.2018 passed by District Consumer        Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh in             C.C.No.No.568/2017..

Argued by:  Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, advocate for the appellants

BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                       Mrs.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                     Appellants/complainants are impugning the order  dated 15.03.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(I), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), dismissing their complaint.     

 2.           In the complaint, it was stated by the complainants that they invested an amount of Rs.one lac with the OPs  in a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years.  Thereafter, it was  renewed and date of maturity was fixed at  9.7.2016. They continued to receive interest upto 31.3.2015.  Thereafter, neither interest amount was paid, nor maturity amount was offered for payment.  They also deposited another amount of Rs.one lac in a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of two years with its maturity date fixed as 21.7.2014.  They received  interest amount upto the date of maturity but thereafter neither any interest, nor the maturity amount was paid to them. Alleging deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, a consumer complaint was filed seeking refund of the amount paid with interest, compensation for mental and physical harassment and also litigation expenses.   

3.             Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs/respondents taking an objection specifically stating that the Forum, before whom the complaint was filed, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate it. It was specifically stated that no cause of action had accrued, qua deposit of amounts, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum.  It was further stated that no doubt the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipts through OP No.5/respondent No.5 but the said OP was only a facilitator to the extent of transmitting application of the complainants to the OPs. 

 4.           By making reference to the provisions of Section11 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, it was specifically noticed by the Forum  that no action was taken  qua issuance of FDRs by the OPs No.1 to 4 within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. When rejecting the claim raised by the complainants, it was rightly said that no cause of action had accrued to the complainants/appellants within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. To support the above view, reference was made to many judgments. We are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Forum is perfectly justified.  Counsel for the appellants failed to show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order, under challenge.

6.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld. 

 7.             Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.