DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.715 of 2018

                                                Date of institution:  09.07.2018                                             Date of decision   :  28.11.2018

Hazura Singh son of Tulsa Singh, resident of House No.4732, Sector 70, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Pb.).

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Nature Heights Infra Ltd. through Shri Neeraj Thatai alias (Managing Director) 9, Sunder Nagari, Opposite Children Park,  Hanumangarh Road, Abohar (Punjab).

2.     Nature Heights Infra Ltd. through Shri Amit Kukar,  (Director) 9, Sunder Nagari, Opposite Children Park,  Hanumangarh Road, Abohar (Punjab).

3.     Nature Heights Infra Ltd. through Shri Ankit Kumar Grover, Branch Manager, SCO No.20, GF, Phase-1, SAS Nagar (Pb.)

4.     Nature Heights Infra Ltd. through Shri Ankit Kumar Grover, Branch Manager c/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh, VPO Sohana, Mohalla Chiri Maar, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Punjab).

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:     None for complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               On knowing about OP launching of project at Village Dhanera, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar,  complainant booked plot measuring 1500 sq. ft. with OPs on 21.06.2017, but it is clamed that said agreement is not got signed from the complainant and as such he is not bound by terms and conditions of the agreement. Out of the settled sale consideration, complainant claims to have paid Rs.2,81,250/-. However, the complainant got one letter issued by Jalandhar Development Authority for knowing that the OPs have not got any approval from the Punjab Govt.  So, by pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by Ops, prayer made for refund of paid amount of Rs.2,81,250/- with interest @ 16% per annum from the date of investment  alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses etc..

2.             Earlier complaint was admitted, but now latest law on the subject has come to the notice of this Forum for finding that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction because of property situate in Ropar District. So this complaint is disposed of at this stage, more so when none has turned up for complainant today and nor publication got effected.

3.             Relying on case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(1) CLT 252 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and of case Girish Ahuja Vs. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. 2018(2) CPR 278 (NC), Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.807 of 2017 titled as Preet Pal Vs. M/s. Nature Heights Infra Limited decided on 13.07.2018 has held that in cases relating to immovable property, jurisdiction to entertain lis is with the Fora within whose jurisdiction the suit property is locate. These are in fact observations of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of Girish Ahuja Vs. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and that is why Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh held that cause of action in the event of breach of agreement of sale of plot/property accrues within territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, where property is situate. Ratio of these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such in view of property/plot in question being situate in territorial jurisdiction of Ropar Forum, the complaint deserves to be presented in that Forum. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such complaint returned for presentation before the Forum having territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law.

4.             Even if part payment made through Branch Office, Mohali is alleged, but despite that breach of terms of agreement of sale committed in Ropar area due to non providing of promised plot/accommodation there and as such virtually cause of action accrued within territorial jurisdiction of Ropar area and not in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is the breach of agreement and the terms thereof that to give rise to cause of action and not the place of making part payment. Perusal of legal notice and one of the receipt of payment shows that property is situate in Ropar and even it is so pleaded in the complaint and as such in view of location of property at village Dhanera, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, the complaint in this Forum is not maintainable.  Virtually contradictory pleas are taken by complainant regarding booking of plot on the basis of agreement, but by claiming that complainant is not bound by terms and conditions of the agreement because the same is not signed by complainant. No one will make payment of monthly installments unless aware of terms and conditions of sale and as such plea taken in the complaint not acceptable that complainant is not bound by terms and conditions of the agreement for sale.

5.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint ordered to be returned to complainant for presentation before the Forum having territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. 

Announced

November 28, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member