Delhi

New Delhi

CC/245/2014

Mr. Manish - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SRS Real Estate - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./245/2014                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

MR. MANISH

C-1/106, SRS Residency,

Sector-88,

Faridabad, HARYANA

 

 

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

 

M/S SRS REAL ESTATE LIMITED,

202, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

Through its Director

 

                   ......... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP Company, claiming the following reliefs:

(a)    Direct the OP Company to refund/adjust a sum of Rs. 1,30,400/- with interest from the date originally charged till the date of refund, fraudulently charged by the OP Company towards Fire Fighting charges while the same is part of their basic specification as per point 13 of Annexure C of the Allotment Letter.

(b)    Direct the OP Company to refund the additional/enhanced EDC charges collected from the complaint while the said charges are not payable owing to ongoing stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana or alternatively, give an undertaking to refund the said charges with interest @ 18 p.a. subject to the final outcome and decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the WRIT petition presently under adjudication.

(c)    Direct the OP Company to withdraw the sale of open car parking space being made to various Allottes as that area forms part of common areas already charged to all Allottes proportionately and direct the OP Company to earmark the same as visitor car parking or leave it for the Flat Owners to decide a preferred common usage at a later date, more so when its been a settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(d)    Direct the OP Company to immediately clear the hypothecation of the entire project done by them with Union Bank of India to avail a loan on this project while the OPs are well aware of a loan already availed by the complainant.

(e)    Direct the OP Company pay interest @ 18% on an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was collected by the year 2010 towards cost of covered car parking and where as the said car parking has been allotted only in November, 2013.

(f)     Direct the OP Company to refund an amount of Rs. 1,30,400/- collected deceptively in the name of PLC charges for a park facing flat further with interest @ 18% p.a. calculated from December, 2010 till the time this money is fully refunded to the complainant.

(g)    Direct the OP to pay penalty of Rs, 6,520/- per month (calculated at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per sq ft per month over an area of 1304 Sq ft) along with interest w.e.f. 1/7/09 till 17/5/12 when the possession of the flat was actually handed over to the Complainant.

(h)    Direct the OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant, towards various deficiency of services and unfair trade practices adopted by the OP as enumerated herein above.

(i)     Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the complainants and against the OP.  It is prayed accordingly.

       

The complaint is contested by the OP, who filed reply contesting the complainant with one of the preliminary objections challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. On merits also the question of territorial jurisdiction is raised by the OP. An application is also filed by the OP for rejecting the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. By this order, we shall decide this application along with the question of territorial jurisdiction raised in the reply to the complaint is the same in one and the same objection.

 

The contention on behalf of the OP that the allotment of the property was made by the Faridabad Office of OP, all the payments from the complainant were received by Faridabad Office of the OP, all correspondence is done by the complainant with the Faridabad, office of the OP is and the property in question is also situated in Faridabad, Haryana. Therefore, no cause of action accrued within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum and complaint should be rejected for want of jurisdiction of this District Forum  Reliance is placed upon M./ S Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd

 

The contention on behalf of complainant is that in para number 18 of the agreement executed between parties it is stated that the payments are to be made at Delhi, letters issued by complainant to the Faridabad, office of the OP were received in Delhi office of the OP's, hence this District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Reliance is placed upon Mukul Aggarwal versus M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, Complaint Case No. 72 of 2013 decided on to 2/12/2014 by Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission and Neha Singhal versus M/S Unitech Ltd being First Appeal No. 426 of 2010 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18/2/2011.

 

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the authorities relied upon by them, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

 

The question directly, arose before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Wg. Com. P. Kosalairaman versus Chief Executive M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd. and others in Revision Petition No. 1567 of 2012, wherein the State Commission of Coimbatore on the facts that the alleged defective item was purchased in Bhatinda has held that Bhatinda Court has jurisdiction to try the complaint case. In holding this State Commission Coimbatore relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 1V. (2009) CPJ. 40 (SC) wherein it was held that in order to invoke jurisdiction against the branch office, cause of action should have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Consumer Forum, where the branch office of the O.P. is available. The Hon'ble National Commission in P. Kosalairaman's case (supra) holding that the provisions of CPC have limited application so far proceedings of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are concerned confirmed the order of State Commission that the fora  at  Coimbatore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also held that complaint, be returned to the complainant, who was also given liberty to file the complaint before District Forum at Bhatinda.

 

In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009 and relied upon by learned counsel for OP, the following observations were made:

 

“Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

In Rajan Kapoor versus Estate Officer and another Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 4/11/2011,  the following observations were made:

 

“Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Panchkula, in as much as application for allotment was made by the complainant to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer.  Even if one or two letters/ representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Administrator HUDA, it would not make a difference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum.  We are, therefore, of the view that order of the State Commission so far as it directed the complainant- petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.  Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party.”

 

In the light of the above case law, It is amply clear that the complainant is required to file the complaint before the District Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action arose coupled with the fact that head office and  the branch office of the company in question is also situated. Mukul Agrawal's case (supra) relied on behalf of complainant, therefore, does not help the complainant. In Neha Singhal's case, relied on behalf of the complainant the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has taken the view that the clause relating to jurisdiction of court in the agreement between the parties cannot by itself override the statutory right of the appellant/complainant conferred by provisions of Act. We do not find this authority of any help to the complainant. Mere sending of a legal notice or one or two letters to the head office of OP one would not constitute cause of action or attract the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. In the light of a Rajan Kapoor's case (supra) and Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd's case (supra). we reject, in the light of Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti case (Supra), the contention made on behalf of the complainant that since the letters of the complainant addressed to OP at Faridabad office have been received in Delhi office within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum, so this District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint too. In our view, the cause of action even partly cannot be created in Delhi by issuing the letters addressed to a company at Faridabad, office, but delivering it in Delhi office for onward transmission to Faridabad Office. The fact remains that property in question was allotted by the Faridabad office of the OP, the payments were made by the complainant to the Faridabad office of the OP, the correspondence onus was addressed by complainant to Faridabad office of the OP and property in question is also situated in Faridabad, Haryana. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this District Forum is not attracted merely by the letters addressed to the OP company at its Faridabad office but delivering these letters in Delhi office of the OP.

 

In view of the above discussion, we hold that this District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint and only the concerned District Forum at Faridabad, Haryana has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Therefore, by allowing the application of the OP, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant along with documents for filing the same before the competent Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. The complaint, be returned with documents against receipt, by keeping a set for the purpose of record. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

File be consigned to the record room.

   Pronounced in open Forum on 31/03/2017.

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                 (H M VYAS)

                                                                     MEMBER                                   MEMBER