STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Mrs. Paru Katyal w/o Brig. (Retd.) Rakesh Katyal, House No.1104, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

---Appellant

V E R S U S

1.  Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110 019.

2.  Omaxe Limited through its Branch Head (Commercial), SCO No.143-144, 1^st  Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh - 160 008.

---Respondents.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

                   S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, applied for allotment of a flat, with the Opposite Parties (now respondents), in a Group Housing Project under the name and style of “Omaxe Parkwood” at Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan. She was allotted Flat No.310, in Kachnar Tower at Baddi. An agreement (Annexure C-1), was executed between the parties on 06.09.2006, for the sale of the said flat. According to the  terms and conditions of the said agreement, the Opposite Parties,  agreed to sell the said flat,  to the complainant, for a sum of Rs.13,96,350/-. The complainant, paid a sum of Rs.2,09,453/-, on 6.9.2006, being 15% of the basic sale price. According to the complainant, she paid a total amount of  Rs.14,00,792/-, to the Opposite Parties, vide  receipts [Annexure C-2 (Colly.)]. According to Clause 28(a) of the agreement, the possession of the said flat was to be offered within 18 months, with further provision of another 6 months, from the date of execution of the same (agreement). It was further stated that despite the fact, that the entire sale consideration of the said flat,  had been paid by the complainant, and a period of almost four years had already expired, from the date of execution of the agreement, the possession of the said flat, had not been handed over to her. The complainant, sent numerous emails dated 20.7.2008, 3.1.2009, 22.2.2009 and 22.3.2009, to the Opposite Parties, requesting them to refund the sale consideration, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant,  was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed by her.

3.               The Opposite Parties, put in appearance, and filed their written reply, wherein, it was pleaded that the District Forum at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was admitted by the Opposite Parties(now respondents), that the complainant, applied for the allotment of a flat to them, in a Group Housing Project, under the name and style of “Omaxe Parkwood” at Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan. It was not admitted, that the agreement, between the parties, was executed on 06.09.2006. According to the Opposite Parties, the same was executed, between the parties,  on 08.05.2008, and the possession of the flat, was, thus, to be handed over to the complainant upto 08.05.2010. It was denied, that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.

6.               Feeling aggrieved, against the impuged order, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

8.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that according to the letter Annexure B, received by the complainant, the Opposite Parties, shifted their project “Omaxe Parkwoods, Baddi” from Delhi Head Office to Regional Office at Chandigarh. He further submitted that the correspondence address in Annexure B, was also given as that of Omaxe Limited, SCO 143-144, First Floor, Sector 8C, Chandigarh, by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the payment was made, towards the price of the flat, at Chandigarh, and, as such, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that the District Forum, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that it had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.               After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.        Admittedly, the project under the name and style of “Omaxe Parkwood” in which the complainant, applied for the allotment of a flat, is at Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan. The agreement Annexure C-1, was executed, between the parties,  at Delhi, where the Opposite Parties, have their Head Office. Annexure C-2, (Colly.), receipts dated 06.09.2006, 30.11.2006, 12.02.2007, 20.03.2007, 03.04.2007, 04.06.2007, 04.08.2007, 05.10.2007     and  05.07.2008, vide which the payment of price of the  flat, was made, do not reveal, that the same was paid at Chandigarh. In these receipts, the address of the Opposite Parties, is mentioned as Omaxe House, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, whereas, the address of the complainant, is  mentioned as House No.1104, Sector 4, Panckhula, Haryana. The claim of the Counsel for the appellant, that the payment of price of the flat, was made vide different receipts, referred to above, at Chandigarh, is, therefore, belied. The mere fact, that according to Annexure B, attached with the appeal, the correspondence address of the Opposite parties, was mentioned at Chandigarh, or they shifted, their project for the sake of customer convenience and smooth after sales activities, to the Regional Office at Chandigarh, did not confer any jurisdiction,  upon the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Chandigarh, to entertain and decide the complaint.  Since, the project, in which the complainant, applied for flat, is at Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan; the agreement was executed at Delhi; and the payment towards the price of the flat, was made at Delhi, no cause of action accrued to the complainant, to file the complaint, within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  at Chandigarh. The Branch office, as mentioned in Section 11 of the Act, is relatable to the cause of action. Had, a part of cause of action, arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, it would have been said, that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Chandigarh, had the jurisdiction to entertain, and decide the complaint. In Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the Insurance policy was obtained at Ambala, the fire took place, in the premises, situated at Ambala, and the premium was paid at Ambala. Under these circumstances, it was held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court, that no cause of action, arose to the complainant, to file the complaint, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh. The principle of law, laid down, in Sonic Surgical`s case (supra), is squarely applicable, to the facts of the instant case. The district Forum, was, thus, right, in holding, that it had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain, and decide the complaint. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.            The findings of the District Forum do not suffer from any illegality, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

12.            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.

13.            However it is made clear, that the appellant/complainant, shall be at liberty, to file the complaint, before the appropriate Forum, having the territorial jurisdiction.

14.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

21.12.2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg