DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:738 of 2010] Date of Institution :12.11.2010 Date of Decision :28.12.2011 ------------------------------------- 1. Sh. Sandeep Singla son of Sh. R. C. Singla; 2. Smt. Deepti Singla wife of Sh. Sandeep Singla, Both resident of House No.1649/2, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainants. (VERSUS) 1. OMAXE Limited through Sh. Rohtas Goel, Chairman & Managing Director, Regd. & Corporate Office at OMAXE House, 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019. 2. Sh. Amardeep Singh, General Manager (Himachal Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana), OMAXE Chandigarh Office & Regional Office at SCO No.143-144, First Floor, Sector 8, Chandigarh. 3. Sh. Sandeep Bansal, Manager, Baddi OMAXE Parkwood Project, OMAXE Chandigarh Office & Regional Office, SCO No.143-144, Sector 8, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sameer Bector, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Sandeep Singla and his wife Smt. Deepti Singla have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Refund an amount of Rs.12,88,000/- deposited by the complainants with the OPs along with interest @18% per annum; ii) Pay an amount of Rs.2 Lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation; iv) Pay the amount of rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month since June, 2009, which the complainants are paying due to not handing over of possession of the allotted flat/unit; 2. The case of the complainants is that they purchased a Flat/Unit No.305, Block Kachnar-A measuring 89.46 Sq. Mtrs from the OPs in a Group Housing Project in the name and style of “Omaxe Parkwood” at Village Chakkan and Billanwali – Gujran, Pargana Dharampur, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. An agreement (Annexure C-1) was executed between the parties on 07.06.2007 for the sale of the said flat. As per the terms of the said agreement, OP agreed to sell the above said flat to the complainant for a sum of Rs.13,05,770.22Ps. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.12,88,000/- towards the sale price of the said flat/unit vide cheques dated 8.7.2007 for Rs.1,30,000/-, 19.7.2007 for Rs.58,000/- and dated 16.7.2007 for Rs.11,00,000/- (Annexures C-3 to C-4). As per 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 agreement. It has further been pleaded by the complainants that despite the fact that the complainants have already paid a huge amount of Rs.12,88,000/- towards the sale consideration of the said plot and the a period of almost four years had already expired from the date of agreement, the possession of the said flat has not been handed over to them. According to the complainant, despite email dated 10.07.2010, OPs failed to refund the sale consideration. The complainants also served a legal notice dated 03.09.2010 upon the OPs but to no avail. According to the complainants, non refund of the price of the flat amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, the facts regarding execution of the agreement for the sale of Flat/Unit No.305, Block Kachnar-A measuring 89.46 Sq. Mtrs situated at Village Chakkan and Billanwali – Gujran, Pargana Dharampur, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan for Rs.13,05,770.22Ps has been admitted. Rests of the averments made in the complaint have been specifically denied by the OPs. According to OPs, in case of delay, other provisions of the agreement are applicable. It has been asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint deserves dismissal. OPs have also raised a specific preliminary objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction. According to OPs, no cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh and merely having a branch office of OPs at Chandigarh does not bring the dispute within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. According to the learned counsel for the OP, the flat regarding which the agreement was executed is situated at Baddi, Distt. Solan (Himachal Pradesh). The payments were made at Delhi and the agreement was also executed at Delhi. Thus, no cause of action took place at Chandigarh. Therefore, merely because the OP has its Branch Office at Chandigarh would not confer jurisdiction to the District Forum at Chandigarh. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the OP has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC). 6. From the bare perusal of the agreement (Annexure C-1), it is apparently clear that the said agreement between the parties was executed at Delhi. Annexures C-2 to C-4 are the copies of receipts issued by the OP No.1 against the receipt of payments from time to time. All these received have been issued at Delhi and not even a single transaction took place at Chandigarh. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainants to prove that a part of cause of action took place at Chandigarh. Thus, it is undoubtedly proved on record that no cause of action took place at Chandigarh and the District Forum at Chandigarh does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. To our mind, the ratio of case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 28th December, 2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.738 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 19.12.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 28.12.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
