DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

Case No.421/2011:

In the matter of:

Sh. Sunil Jain

S/o. Sh. Vakil Chand Jain

R/o. C – 9/274, Yamuna Vihar,

New Delhi

Complainant

Vs.

Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Reg.Off. 78B, Sec – 11, Group – 11,

DDA Flats, Kondali Gharoli,

Mayur Vihar, Phase – III,

Delhi – 110 096

Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd.

A – 1, Sector 4, Noida - 201301

Respondent

Date of Admission : 19/05/2011

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 12/01/2015

ORDER

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member:

            The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that a dealer of the respondent approached the complainant offering a commercial shop in Ghaziabad.  After understanding the terms and conditions of the scheme offered by the respondent on 14/02/2006 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- towards advance money for a 96 Sq.yds (approx.) in any present and future project.  At the time of booking the respondent assured the complainant that in case it is not in position to give the said to meet the booking of the complainant it would refund the advance money deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18%.  It is further alleged that the respondent had also assured to deliver the possession within 24 months from the date of deposit of the advance money.  In December 2010, the complainant visited the project site of the respondent and found that construction had not started till that date.  The complainant demanded refund of Rs.12,79,464/-, the amount deposited by him in all towards the booking made with the respondent alongwith interest @18% from it but in vain. In these circumstances the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.12,79,464/- alongwith interest @18% from the date of deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs.50,000/- as the cost of this litigation. 

            An application has been moved by the respondent for the dismissal of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.  It is alleged that the whole cause of action had arisen in Noida and Ghaziabad and no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.  In the case in hand, the booking and all the payments were made in Noida and the project is situated at Village Behmetta, Ghaziabad, UP.  Merely because the office of the respondent is situated in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction to the complainant as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi.  The respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/1764/2009 (2010) 1 SCC 135 wherein the expression “Branch Office” as used in the The Consumer Protection Act has been explained to mean the branch office where the cause of action had arisen.  It is further alleged that neither the respondent is residing nor carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  

            The respondent did not file the written statement on the date fixed.  An application was moved by the Ld.Counsel for the respondent seeking time for filing the same.  The application of the respondent was allowed and it was allowed time upto 27/08/2012 for filing the written statement subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost.  Written Statement filed by the respondent on 27/08/2012 but it was pointed out by the Complainant Counsel that the filing of the written statement was subject to the payment of cost and the same has not been paid.  In view of the fact that the cost has not been paid, it was ordered on 03/01/2013 that the written statement filed on record shall not be considered.

            Evidence by way of affidavit filed by both the parties to the present lis in support of their respective cases.

            Heard and perused the record.

Before going into the merits of the case, the application moved by the respondent challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint needs to be decided as the question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the complaint.  It is a well established principle of law that the jurisdiction is decided from the averments made in the complaint or the plaint, as the case may be.  In the present complaint the jurisdiction of this Forum is to be culled out from the averments contained in the complaint.  On the careful perusal of the record, it is observed that in the case in hand the booking was done at Noida on 01/04/2006 and payment receipts filed on record also show that the payments aggregating to Rs.12,79,464/- towards the cost of the shop in question were received by the respondent at their Noida Office.  Further, the project in question is situated at Village Behmetta, Ghaziabad, UP.  The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the Court at Delhi will have the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as the respondent has its Registered Office in Delhi will be of no aid to the complainant in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/1764/2009 (2010) 1 SCC 135 on which the respondent has placed reliance.  In the case in hand, no part of the cause of action has arisen at Delhi where the Registered Office of the respondent is situated.  Mere existence of the Registered Office at a particular place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court/Forum does not ipso facto confer jurisdiction on the Court or the Forum to entertain the case filed against the company.  In the present case the entire series of transactions took place at Noida Office in Uttar Pradesh and no part of dealing was transacted within the territory of NCT of Delhi and the project in question is situated at Village Behmetta, Ghaziabad, UP and it is only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in Delhi that the complainant has filed the present complaint using the address of the Registered Office of the respondent.  In view of the observations and discussion made supra,

Taking into consideration the detailed discussion and observations made supra, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction.  It needs to be returned to the complainant for presentation to the Competent Court/Forum having jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.

In the above circumstances, there will be no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.