This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1185 of 2009 was dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Sahara India Pariwar-OPs floated a Scheme of Sahara Swarn/ Rajat Yojna for providing constructed houses by giving advertisement in the various newspapers, a copy of which is Annexure C-1. The Complainant approached the Regional Office of OPs at Chandigarh (OP No. 2) for inquiry in regard to the above said schemes and convinced by OPs he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as registration fee under Option-A, along with application in the prescribed format with OP NO.2 at Chandigarh. The formalities for the registration were completed by OP No. 2 at Chandigarh and thereafter, an account was opened in the Branch Office of the OP No. 3 at Kalka, wherein the subsequent installments were deposited as per pass book issued by them. It was alleged that the OPs were to allot him a 3 Bed Room Flat by 15.4.2005, but even inspite of repeated requests and inquiries no such flat was allotted to him, though he had paid a sum of Rs.2,71,504/-through monthly installments of Rs.7146/- each to OPs. Hence,alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint at Chandigarh seeking directions to OPs either to allot house at Chandigarh or refund of deposited amount with interest besides compensation etc. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the complaint and hearing the complainant came to the conclusion that no part of cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh and dismissed the complaint in limine, giving liberty to the complaint to file the complaint before the competent District Consumer Forum having jurisdiction over the matter to entertain and try it. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant is that the OPs were having their Regional Office at Chandigarh where the cause of action had also arisen because OPs in their advertisement had floated a township project for Chandigarh city for which place the complainant had booked a flat and all the formalitieis were completed at Chandigarh. Further the complainant was registered in the scheme under which he was to be provided a flat at Chandigarh which is clearly indicated in the receipt/acknowledgement annexure A/3 but the learned District Forum has not considered this document. It was further argued that since OPs have branch office at Chandigarh so the District Forum at Chandigarh have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint but the same was erroneously dismissed without issuing any notice to Opposite parties. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the following authorities ; (i) Narayan Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2008(1)CPC 557 (ii) Venkaesh and others Vs Vishwnath and others 2008(1)CPC733 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that here in the instant case the booking amount was deposited by the complainant at Kalka Branch office of OPs. The Head Office of OPs is admittedly at Lucknow in U.P. It is not disputed that the OPs have a branch office at Chandigarh but merely having a branch office of OPs does not confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum, Chandigarh to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter unless the cause of action wholly or in part is proved to have arisen here. It has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Sonie Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP) while interpreting Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 that the Branch office in section 17(2) means the Branch office where the cause of action has arisen. In the present case no doubt the OPs have branch office at Chandigarh but no cause of action had accrued at Chandigarh. The receipt annexure A-3 is issued by the Kalka office. Therefore, the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for complainant stood overruled in view of the recent pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex cout in Sonie Surgical (Supra). 7. In view of the settled law in the matter, we find that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the District Forum and as such no interference is called for therein. Consequently the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, complainant would be at liberty to knock at the door of appropriate forum having competent jurisdiction over the matter in question. 8. Before parting with this order,we are constrained to observe that from the brochure/advertisement Annexure A-1 and receipt Annexure A-3 attached with the Memorandum of Appeal, it appears that OPs tried to allure the customers/consumers to go in for the purchase of flats to be constructed within local limits of City beautiful Chandigarh, whereas it was not so. In fact the construction of the project was to be carried at revenue estate of village Bhabat near Zirakpur,District Mohali(Punjab). However, this fact of location of the project is missing in the brochure and the receipt issued to the complainant. Annexure A-1 and receipt Annexure A-3 issued to the complainant in fact contains the element of cheating. However, without commenting further in this regard we now hope and trust that in future OPs would deal with its customers fairly by mentioning exact location of its project to be executed in future. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
