ORDER                                        

Rekha Rani, President

1. The instant complaint has been filed by Dr Devender Gupta director of M/s Supper Prop-Mart Pvt. Ltd.  U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act inter-alia pleading therein following submissions:

 The OP  had given an advertisement in respect of their proposed commercial complex , NBCC Centre, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi in national news papers and invited citizens to book shop / office in the proposed commercial  complex. The complainant accordingly booked  a shop/ office  for his use bearing no. 601, measuring 8307.69 Sq. Ft. as super built up area and car parking slots in the proposed commercial  complex.  He deposited an earnest money of Rs. 12,59,615/- on 18.03.2008 as part payment with OP. OP did not complete  construction within the stipulated period of time. Complainant  requested the OP to accept the balance payment and handover vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the booked shop/ office but till date the OP has not done so. Complainant was shocked to receive  a letter  dated 20.10.2010 from the OP  to the effect that his allotment for the shop / office was cancelled and earnest money deposited ( Rs.12,59,615/- ) was forfeited. Complainant was ready and willing to pay the balance amount in respect of booked shop/ office therefore  OP could not cancel the booking  of shop / office and also could not forfeit the earnest money deposit  which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed for direction to the OP to revoke its letter dated 20.10.2010 vide which the booking / allotment of shop /office in favour of complainant was cancelled and  to refund earnest money  of Rs. 12,59,615/-  which was forfeited along with interest @ 24% p.a.  , Rs 5 Lakhs as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.

2. NBCC (OP) filed reply and contested the claim. It is submitted that complainant is not a consumer as  he  has booked shop / office for commercial purpose. It is also submitted that this forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is also submitted that  the OP is a government owned entity working under the aegis of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India  which purchased a commercial plot  measuring 8597 sqm. from DDA through an open auction in  March 2007 and after obtaining physical possession and getting the land registered in its name the OP prepared and submitted building plans of the proposed commercial complex to DDA for approval  It is further submitted that requisite documents were submitted to various statutory  authorities  like Airport Authority, Ministry of Environmental and Forests, Department of Urban Art, DDA, Fire etc for approval. It is also stated that complainant’s allotment  was cancelled and initial deposit of 1 % of total price was forfeited in view of the fact that  complainant did not make the due payment as per agreement  despite repeated reminders of the OP. It is also submitted that complainant himself is responsible for the delay. It is stated that although  complainant claimed that he booked commercial space for his urgent need,  he did not give any response to the communication of the OP including cancellation notices dated 04.07.2008 and 11.07.2008 and waited  for about 31 months (i.e. about 2 ½ years) before contacting the OP. It is denied that Op has indulged in any unfair trade practice or  caused any deficiency of service.
3. We have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Nitin Saxena AR of complainant and by Sh. Shashi Mohan counsel for OP.
4. Learned counsel for OP has vehemently objected to the jurisdiction of this forum to adjudicate the claim of the complainant mainly on two  grounds:

• Firstly it is alleged that complainant is not a consumer  as admittedly he booked a shop/ office with car parking slots  in commercial complex proposed to be developed by NBCC (OP). Learned counsel for the OP has referred to Para 2 and 3 of the complaint wherein complainant himself has stated that he booked office/ shop in the commercial complex  proposed to be developed in NBCC Centre, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi. In para 3 of the complaint he has stated that he has booked shop/ office measuring 8307.69 Sq. Ft. as super built up area with car parking slots.

Learned counsel for the NBCC (OP) has further referred to letter of complainant dated 12.10.2010 copy whereof is placed on record. In para 1 of the said letter complainant has written that “I have booked shop/ office no. 601, measuring 8307.69 sq.ft. as super built up area and 10 number car parking slots to be allotted by you at porposed , commercial complex NBCC, Centre Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi”. AR for the complainant has stated that the complainant is having his business at M-56 , top floor , Greater Kailash which is commercial market. It is further argued that having booked a shop/ office space with parking slots in a commercial complex the complainant cannot claim to be a consumer  and therefore his claim cannot be adjudicated by this forum.

• Secondly learned counsel  for the NBCC (OP) has taken objection on territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum to adjudicate the instant claim. In para 5 page 9 of its written statement NBCC (OP) has stated that as per allotment letter and terms and conditions of the document which was duly signed by the complainant he was required to pay 14 % of the total sale consideration (Rs. 1,75,59,615/-) by  10.04.2008 and subsequently another 10% of the total sale consideration ( Rs 1,25,46,151/-) by 03.05.2008. The complainant has not denied the same in corresponding para 5 of his rejoinder.

5.   Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous   Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016  observed that value of goods & services  is to be   seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of deficiency.
6. The same question again came up  before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant

sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum.  The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

7. In another case titled  Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission  judgment in  Ambrish Kumar Shukla  (supra)  was again referred and following relevant part  of the said judgment was quoted:  

“Reference order dated 11.8.2016   Issue No. (i)   It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 Crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakh, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”

8. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainant  had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and  final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized  the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition.  The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles.   Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High  Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India   taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant.  The complainant hence filed a  Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and  for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles.  The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The  Hon’ble National Commission observed that :

“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh,  the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-.  Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.

9. The value of booked shop/ office admittedly being  beyond Rs. 20 Lakhs this  forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Vide para 4 page 3 of the written statement and para 9 of the written arguments NBCC (OP) has also taken objection to territorial jurisdiction of this forum to adjudicate the instant complaint. It is stated that neither the complainant nor NBCC (OP) carries on its own business within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. It is further stated that  the commercial complex where the shop along with the parking slot was booked by the complainant is supposed to come up at Okhla   which is also not within the territorial jurisdiction of  this forum. It is also stated that  no part of cause of action,  if any ,arose  within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. In corresponding para 4 of his written statement the complainant has simply stated that this forum has jurisdiction. It is however not clarified as to how  this forum has territorial jurisdiction. None of the objections taken by the complainant have been answered.

10. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that  amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting.  It was observed  that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
11. Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula  allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical  (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of  complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing  that simply because Head Office of  HUDA  was in Panchkula ,   Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
12. Hon’ble National Commission has shown concern that various District fora within the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction strictly in accordance with the terms of Govt of Delhi Directorate of Consumer Affairs,  Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999  which is necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute.  According to the said notification dated 20.04.1999 District Forum (Central )  is competent to exercise jurisdiction only over cases falling in Areas within police stations namely Chandni Mahal, Jama Masjid, Hauz Quasi, I.P. Estate, Pahar Ganj, D.B.G. Road, Nabi Karim, Karol Bagh, Prasad Nagar and  Rajinder Nagar.
13. In  other words , if OP resides or works for gain within the area of any of the said Police Stations and if cause of action wholly or partly arises within the area of said police stations only then this forum will be competent to adjudicate the complaint.
14. It is therefore clear that if cause of action has arisen in an area not falling with the territorial jurisdiction of this forum as  enumerated vide Gazette Notification No.  F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999  this forum cannot proceed with the complaint. This view is fortified by Apex Court Judgment in Sonic Surgical (supra). 
15.  Objections taken by OP qua territorial jurisdiction of this forum as discussed above are valid and therefore sustained.
16. Since this forum has neither pecuniary nor territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter we cannot deal with these objections taken by the NBCC (OP) as to whether the complainant is a consumer despite having booked / office with parking slot in a commercial complex. The complaint be  accordingly returned  to the complainant with original documents ,if any,    for want of pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction   for presentation before appropriate forum having jurisdiction.  Copy of the same be kept on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this 8^th day of December 2017.