Haryana

StateCommission

A/407/2015

SATBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.KATARIA

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       407 of 2015

Date of Institution:       01.05.2015

Date of Decision :        20.10.2015

 

Satbir Singh s/o Sh. Kurariya Ram, Resident of Village Budain, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind (Haryana)

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, Infrastructure & Housing Division, Sahara India Centre-2, Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (U.P.) through its Managing Director/Chairman.

 

2.      Sahara India Parivar, SCO No.22, HUDA City Centre near Delhi Hospital, Jind, District Jind (Haryana) through its Branch Manager, Jind Branch.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Satbir Singh Goripuria, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The un-successful complainant is in appeal against the order dated April 3^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Satbir Singh-complainant-appellant, booked a flat with Sahara India Pariwar-respondents-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘builder’) by paying Rs.3,31,800/- on December 7^th, 2007 to the builder at Jind, vide receipt (Exhibit C-9).  The basic price of the flat was Rs.33,48,000 /-. He paid Rs.3,31,800/- (each) vide receipts Exhibit C-10 to 13 at Jind. According to the complainant, he paid the entire price of the flat but the opposite parties failed to deliver possession rather raised demand of Rs.7,02,140.51, vide letter dated June 25^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-7).  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties-respondents contested complaint by filing reply taking plea that the demand made vide Exhibit C-7 was justified and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Vide impugned order, it was observed that the flat is situated at Sahara City Homes, Indore, therefore, the District Forum, Jind has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5.      Having examined the issue in light of the material on record, this Commission is of the view that the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, is unsustainable.

6.      Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short ‘the Act’) defines the jurisdiction of District Forum. Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, reads as under:-

“(2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

     (c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 

 

7.      The sole question for consideration therefore, is as to whether on the basis of evidence available on the record, the “cause of action”, wholly or in part, arose at Jind?

8.      The expression “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, the said expression is described as a bundle of essential facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove and obtain a decree but does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts. Failure to prove such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in his favour.  “Cause of action” thus gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit.  

9.      Let it be now seen whether in this case the cause of action or part thereof arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Jind.  Although the project where the flat was booked is situated at Indore but the fact remains that payments were received by the branch office of the builder at Jind, vide receipts Exhibits C-9 to C-13.  Obviously, part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Jind Forum. The District Forum has failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case and erred in dismissing the complaint.  

10.    In this view of the matter, the case requires to be remanded to the District Forum for deciding the complaint on merits. Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Jind, with the direction to decide the complaint on merits and preferably within a period of six months, which shall be from the date of first appearance of the parties. 

11.     The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Jind on 18.11.2015.

12.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 20.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL