Haryana

StateCommission

CC/102/2014

Shalini Nehra - Complainant(s)

Versus

SKM Relicon - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

                  STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.102 of 2014

                                             Date of Institution: 26.09.2014                  Date of Decision: 09.06.2016

 

Mrs. Sahlini Nehru W/o col. M.M.Nehru, r/o H.No.109, Bank Street, Merrut Cantt, Uttar Pardesh.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s SKM Refcon Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Shri Sumeet Kumar Malhotra having its Corporate office at:

Plot No.100, Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110020.

IInd Address:-

B-1/102,10^th Floor, Himalaya House, 23 K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110001.

          …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                      

For the parties:  Mr.Anirudhkush, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             None for the opposite party.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that  opposite party (O.P.) gave advertisement through print and electronic media for construction of apartments at Sector 95 Gurgaon.  As she was desiring to settle  around National Capital she booked 3 BHK + servant quarter NCR measuring 1931 sq. ft. in the said project vide customer code No.DKMCF 326. She paid Rs.5/- lakhs on 29.09.2012 and 31,36,202/- on 01.09.2012 as per terms and conditions of allotment fixed by O.P.  Provisional receipt No.5-20130135 dated 28.03.2013 was issued.  In the month of April 2013 she come to know that O.P. had shelved the said project without giving intimation to her.  She gave a telephonic call at the office of O.P., but, nobody picked up.  ON 02.05.2013 he send e-mail to refund her amount.  On that very day O.P. asked to send request for refund  in writing.  Employees of O.P. assured that her amount was safe and company was going to refund the same. Vide e-mail dated 24.0-5.2013 O.P. asked her to opt for another project at Raj Nagar Extension Gaziabad, but, she declined that offer.  O.P. assured that refund would start from 25.06.2013, but, even thereafter no amount was refunded. O.Ps.  be directed to refund Rs.36,36,202/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides compensation for mental harassment etc.

2.      O.P. was proceeded against ex parte on 28.03.2016 when nobody appeared on it’s behalf despite being represented by counsel on the previous dates.

3.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant booked flat in a project to be started by the O.P. in Sector 95 Gurgaon and  deposited the amount as mentioned above. The project was closed in the month of April 2013,  without any reason. It be directed to refund the amount.  This commission  is having territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint because the project was to start in Gurgaon  and the name of this project is also mentioned in letter dated 25.04.2016 sent by O.P. vide which Rs.Five lacs were refunded, copy of which is Ex.C-12.  A criminal case is also registered against M.D. at Gurgaon.

5.      These arguments are of no avail as far as the question of territorial jurisdiction  is concerned.  Complainant has miserably failed to show that she booked flat in project to be started in Sector 95, Gurgaon. Copy of provisional registration receipt is Ex.C-1. It is no where mentioned therein that flat was booked in any project to start at Gurgaon. As per this receipt an apartment was booked to be constructed in national Capital Region  (NCR).  In e-mails Ex.C-3 to C-11 it is no where mentioned that this booking was pertaining to any apartment to be constructed in Gurgaon.  Complainant has failed to prove that she booked a flat in a project to be started in Sector 95 Gurgaon  for which any add was issued. It was the  bounden duty of the complainant to  connect the booking with any such flat.  If criminal case is registered at Gurgaon it does not mean that a right has accrued to complainant to file complaint before this commission.  As per letter dated Ex.C-12 it cannot be presumed that it is pertaining to the apartment booked by complainant.  This letter is written by Media Estate Private Limited   whereas this complaint is filed against SKM  Refcon Private Limited.  How Media Estate  has  come into picture is no where explained. Complainant has not produced any advertisement vide which O.P. offered booking for any such project at Gurgaon.  It is also not proved that the flat was  booked at Gurgaon or any demand was made at Gurgaon.  It is also not proved that O.P. is carrying any business qua this project at Gurgaon. In this way no cause of action accrued at Gurgaon.  As per complaint, it is clear that the O.P. is having it’s office at Delhi,  It is not having any branch office at Gurgaon.  For the purpose of territorial jurisdiction provisions contained in Section 17(2) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) are to be looked into, which are reproduced as under:-

“Section 17 (2)    A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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 State Commission 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.”

6.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that this complainant has failed to prove any condition. So, this State Commission is not having jurisdiction to try the complaint.  She is to file complaint before the Fora having territorial jurisdiction to try the matter.  Resultantly complaint be returned to complainant with the liberty to file fresh complaint before competent Fora.

7.      Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

8.      Complainant may be given the benefit of the time consumed before this Commission for the computation of period for limitation in subsequent proceedings, if any, as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

 

June 09th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi  Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.