1.M/s Omaxe Limited, SCO No.143-144, Sector-8C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

2.M/s Omaxe Limited, Omaxe House 12, L.S.C., Kalkaji, New Delhi, through its Managing Director

Through their authorized representative namely Sh. Harsh Bhargav, Manager (Legal), M/s Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Sandeep Luthra son of Sh.K.C.Luthra, resident of House No.608, IAS Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

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

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. OPs are directed :-

i)   

ii)  

iii)   To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac to the complainant for causing physical as well as mental harassment.

iv)    To pay litigation costs to the extent of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amounts mentioned at S.No.(ii) to (iii) of the para aforesaid shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.”

2.           

3.           

4.           

5.           

6.           

7.            

8.           

9.            

10.        

11.        

12.        The principal question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum had got the territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. Admittedly, the project, in the name and style ofin which the plot, in question, was originally allotted to, is situated at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (H.P.). There is . The rights and interests, in the plot were transferred, in the name of the complainant, at Delhi, as is evident, from Annexure C-2, copy of the endorsement form, which bears the photo-impression of the stamp of Omaxe Ltd., New Delhi. No doubt, according to the complainant, payments towards the price of the said plot, were made at the Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. However, no document was produced, on the record, showing that these payments were made at Chandigarh. Receipt Annexure C-3 (I) dated 26.11.2007, vide which, a sum of Rs.94,530/-, towards part price of the plot, was deposited through cheque with Omaxe Limited, and issued by an authorized signatory, bears the address of the Opposite Parties, as Omaxe House, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kaklaji, New Delhi-110019. Copy of the receipt Annexure C-3(II) letter regarding intimation of due installment, also does not show that it was issued at Chandigarh. Another receipt dated 12.05.2008, copy whereof is at page 20 of the District Forum file shows that two cheques dated 12.05.2008, in the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.22,000/- respectively, were issued, to the Opposite Parties. No doubt, these cheques were drawn on the ICICI Bank, Chandigarh, yet, it is evident, from copy of the said receipt, that While interpreting the provisions of Section 17(2)(b) of theAct, which arein Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV(2009) CPJ 40(SC), the Apex Court held as under ;

“4.     

XXX                        

8.

13.        The perusal of the facts of Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), clearly goes to reveal that the Policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala; the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. In before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. The findings of the District Forum to the effect that it had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, therefore, being perverse, are reversed.

14.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside.

15.        The complaint, in original, is ordered to be returned to the respondent/complainant, alongwith the documents attached therewith,

16.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.            

Pronounced.

January 15, 2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Rg