STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Appeal No.441 of 2010 ) Date of Institution: 06.12.2010 Date of Decision : 5.4.2011 1. The Managing Director, M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office at 9 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Manager, Collector Centre, G-7, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. 3. The Manager, M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. SCO No.1098-99, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ……Appellants V e r s u s Sandeep Saluja r/o House No.1028, Sector 7, Panchkula (Haryana). ....Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. S.K. Monga, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. Neetu Prashar, Advocate for the respondent. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) has been filed by the appellants/OPs 1,2 & 4 against the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent) was allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant after reading the advertisement of Taneja Developers (OPs) in the newspaper approached their agent (OP No.3) to purchase a flat in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainant duly filled the forms for booking of the flat measuring 1500 sq.ft. @Rs.1725/- per sq. ft. OP No.3 advised him to deposit Rs.4.50 lacs as first installment towards the proposed flat. After deposit of the said amount, Receipt No.60903, dated 9.2.2007 was issued to the complainant by OP No.1. It was agreed between the parties that provisional allotment would be made to the applicant within 6 months from encashment of application money and on the failure to comply with this, OP No.1 was required to pay 12% interest to the complainant. The second installment of Rs.3,26,250/- was also paid to OP No.1 against Receipt No.76327, dated 19.3.2008. Despite receiving a total sum of Rs.7,76,250/- from the complainant, the construction did not start. The complainant then requested the OPs vide application dated 14.5.2009 i.e. after lapse of more than 2 years from the first installment, to refund his money along with interest @12% p.a. as well as pay damages for the delay. However, no action was taken by the OPs to refund the amount. The complainant then sent a legal notice dated 3.6.2009 to all the OPs requesting for refund but the amount was not refunded. It was alleged that the non-delivery of the possession of the flat and further non-refund of the amount paid caused great harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs. 3. Summons sent to OP No.3 through courier were received back with the report “There is no time of coming to the office”. When summons were sent to OP No.3 again, as per report of the Process Server, he refused to accept the same. Since neither OP No.3 was present in person nor any authorized agent was present on his behalf on 24.2.2010, he was proceeded exparte on that date. 4. OPs No.1, 2 & 4 filed joint reply. In the preliminary objections, the OPs have submitted that the complainant had applied for investment in the future scheme of the OPs and a letter regarding provisional allotment was issued to the complainant on 11.12.2007, which was duly accepted by the complainant. On merits, the OPs admitted that the complainant had booked a flat and submitted the application form. It has been submitted that it was the complainant who had in his application requested for interest @12% pa. on the booking amount in case the allotment was not made within 6 months. It has been averred that they are developing a mega project in Mohali and the construction would be started after approval of building plans of the project. It has been alleged that there was no agreement between the parties for making the construction time bound. The OPs have already paid the government dues for obtaining CLU from the Government and the EDC amount paid by the OPs to the various government agencies were recoverable from the allottees and the complainant was one of them. The OPs have further submitted that they have not cheated the complainant in any way. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint. 7. The appellant/OPs 1,2 & 4 have challenged the impugned order through this appeal. 8. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, including the written arguments. 9. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh have no jurisdiction to try this complaint. He referred to para 19 of the complaint which reads as under:- “19. That the complainant is resident of Panchkula. The negotiations were made at Panchkula in the office of the O.P. No.3 at Panchkula, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence, this Hon’ble Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.” In view of these averments contained in para 19 of the complaint, the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh has, prima facie, no jurisdiction to try this complaint. The ld. Counsel for the respondent, however, argued that Ashish Mittal, OP-3 is the agent of the OPs, the negotiations took place in his office at Chandigarh and the initial payment was also made at Chandigarh. This contention is denied by the appellants/OPs and is also beyond pleadings. It is nowhere the case of the complainant before the ld. District Forum in their complaint if Ashish Mittal/OP-3 was the agent of the appellants. All that is said in para 2 of the complaint is that after coming to know about the dealer (OP-3), the complainant approached the oP-3 for the purchase of a flat and the oP-3 advised the complainant to purchase the desired flat in SAS Nagar, Mohali. Again in para 3 of the complaint, it was mentioned that the appellant was approached through OP-3 who got supplied a form for allotment. In para 4 it was mentioned that OP-3 advised him to deposit the first installment towards the proposed flat. It was nowhere his case if OP-3 was the agent of the appellant or if the amount was deposited with him. Needless to mention that anybody may claim to be a dealer of the appellants, and the appellants cannot be held responsible for his actions. 10. In order to prove agency, specific agreement between the agent and the principal is required to be proved, but the same has not been proved by the complainant. The argument now being advanced that the payment was made in the office of OP-3 at Chandigarh runs counter to the plea as contained in para 19 of the complaint, referred to above, in which it was specifically mentioned that the negotiations were made at Panchkula in the office of OP-3 at Panchkula. It is not a case in which the complainant had not come to know of these contents of para 19 of the complaint, but the OPs moved an application for amendment incorporating therein that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint which was opposed by the complainant, but they did not think of amending para 19 of the complaint if it was not according to facts. From the averments contained in para 19 of the complaint, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh is excluded. 11. As regards payment of Rs.4,50,000/-, the complainant has placed on record the receipt (Annexure C-2) for the aforesaid amount. This receipt was issued from Delhi and there is no mention in it if OP-3 had any role to play or if the amount was received through him. The amount was drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. at Panchkula. Since the appellants have their head office at Delhi, the receipt was issued from Delhi, no part of cause of action is proved to have accrued within the jurisdiction of District Fora at Chandigarh. 12. It is true that the appellants/OPs have a branch office at Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. However, the settled proposition of law is that the existence of branch office does not confer any jurisdiction on District Fora at Chandigarh. 13. The complainant is a resident of Panchkula. The flats are situated in S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. According to the complainant, the negotiations took place at Panchkula and as mentioned in para no. 4 and 7 of the complaint, the amount was deposited with OP-1, which is located at New Delhi. In this manner, no part of cause of action is accrued within the jurisdiction of the Learned District Forum. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the ld. District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain, being devoid of jurisdiction, and the same is accordingly set aside. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant/ respondent for presentation before the proper Fora having jurisdiction in the matter. 15. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 5th April, 2011. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER hg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
