SH. SANJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT

ORDER

15.02.2023

1. Sh. Ishwar Chand Jain filed filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as complainant). The complainant is seeking penalty to be imposed on M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP1) for charging Rs.450/- from the complainant for brouchure and for not allowing him to retain the brouchure and to refund Rs.450/-, also imposed penalty to OP1 for inordinate delay in refund of earnest money and refund entire Rs.78,556/- alongwith 12% per annum for the period 21.07.2015 till the date of actual payment and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation cost Rs.5000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that being influenced by lucrative advertisement in Times of India newspaper by OP1, the complainant booked 1BHK Type 1 Flat under Krishna Housing Scheme 2014 with OP1 on 26.12.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.78,556/- through cheque no. 051516 dated 24.12.2014 to OP1. It is stated that as per the draw held on 06.07.2015, the complainant was allotted a flat bearing no. 11002 at 11^th floor in tower B-1. It is further stated that vide e-mail dated 21.07.2015 and 26.07.2015, the complainant surrendered the flat in question with OP1 and further requested to refund the booking amount deposited vide letter dated 28.07.2015. It is stated by the complainant that he also approached OP1 telephonically and informed Ms. Nikita Singh dealing executive of OP1 regarding the surrender and further requested her to refund the deposit amount, but of no use. Again vide e-mail dated 06.09.2015 complainant requested OP1 to refund the amount deposited.

3. It is stated that vide e-mail dated 11.09.2015 OP1 assured the complainant that the booking amount will be refunded within ten days. It is further stated that despite his repeated follow ups nothing has been done by OP1 to release the deposited amount in his favour, despite receiving the surrender e-mail/letter long back on 21.07.2015. This act of OP1 squarely covered under deficiency in service, hence present complaint filed.

4. Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs. OP1 filed its reply wherein it has taken the preliminary objections that this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as OP1 neither carry his business nor has branch office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. It is further stated that the cheque for refund of the deposited amount was already issued in favour of the complainant after the surrender of the flat as per the Affordable Housing Policy 2013 vide post but the complainant returned the cheque and refused to accept the refund amount and filed the present complaint to extort illegal   monetary gains, hence the present complaint be dismissed being a frivolous one.

5. OP2 filed its WS wherein it is stated that the there is no privity of contact between the complainant and OP2, hence the present complaint is not maintainable qua OP2 and be dismissed in the interest of justice.

6. All the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and written arguments.

7. OP1 has strongly challenged the issue of territorial jurisdiction, hence, needs to be decided first.

8. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant is the resident of BG-109, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088. The perusal of the record shows that the address of the OP1 mentioned in the arrays of the party clarify that  office of the OP-1 is situated at 406, 4^th floor, Rectangle One, D4, District Center Saket, Delhi-17, which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission.  The complainant had impleaded OP2 bank in the arrays of the party with the allegation that OP2 bank is the agent of OP1, however the perusal of the record shows that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2. Moreover, OP2 bank is discharging its duty of receiving the payment on behalf of OP1 which does not gave it a status of agent of OP1. The complainant in the present complaint had failed to establish that he is the consumer of OP2. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint, moreover, no cause of action has arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.

9. Our view finds support from the judgement of Hon’ble  National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

         “In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

10. In view of the above discussion and the judgement cited above, we are of the considered view that the complainant had invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission on the basis of address of OP2 bank, however no cause of action arose qua OP2. Admittedly, OP1 office is situated at District Center Saket which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, hence, this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Our view is supported by judgment of Prem Joshi (Supra).

11. The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to parties free of cost by post.

12. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.  Pronounced in open Commission on 15.02.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                      NIPUR CHANDNA                     RAJESH

   PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER