Date of Filing – 23.12.2015
Date of Hearing – 22.03.2017
The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.08/2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum directed the appellants jointly or severally to refund 90% of the deposited amount i.e. Rs.90,000/- without any interest within a period of 45 days, otherwise the amount shall carry penal interest @ 8% p.a. for the default period, to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation cost.
The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that on 02.09.2013 he had applied for booking of a dwelling house with the OPs and to that effect, he has paid Rs.1,000/- as registration fee and Rs.1,00,000/- as booking money. On 25.09.2013 the OP no.2 intimated the complainant that one DU of Type A-1/A has been booked in favour of the complainant with tentative cost of Rs.14.76 lakhs. However, on 25.10.2013 the complainant informed both the opposite parties that he wants to cancel the booking and prayed for refund of booking money. In this regard, all the correspondences and the request of the complainant to get refund of money went in vain. Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for refund of booking money of Rs.1,00,000/-, interest thereon @ 12% p.a. i.e. Rs.14,000/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The appellants being Opposite Parties by filing written version have stated that as per terms of the agreement, all the disputes shall be subject of jurisdiction of the Court of New Delhi and as such the complaint should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
On evaluation of materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite parties as indicated above. Challenging the said order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the respondent had applied for a dwelling unit in the prescribed form on 02.09.2013 along with requisite registration fee of Rs.1,000/- and booking money of Rs.1,00,000/- by bank drafts dated 31.08.2013 in favour of Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO). On 25.09.2013 the appellant no.2 intimated the respondent about allotment of one DU of Type A-1/A has been booked in his favour, the tentative cost of which is Rs.14.76 lakhs excluding other charges. However, the respondent had no means to purchase the same on such a huge amount and as such by a letter dated 25.10.2013 written to the appellants expressed his intention to cancel the booking and prayed for refund of the amount of booking money of Rs.1,00,000/-. Due to non-payment of the same, the instant dispute has cropped up. All these are admitted facts.
Now, in the written version, the appellants did not mention anything to refute the contention of the respondent by citing the terms of the General Rules of IRWO published in April, 2013. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has committed a grave mistake by considering the clause 20.1 which should have been considered in accordance with clause 20.3 and had it been considered the entire booking money + 10% of instalments due (paid or not) would have been deducted and as such the impugned order should be set aside.
Ld. Advocate for the respondent, on the contrary has submitted that the appellants have no locus standi to raise a point beyond the pleading and when in the written version excepting jurisdictional point, no other point has been raised, the Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the order which should not be interfered with.
What I find from the written version is that the appellants have only prayed for dismissal of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. I have seen the relevant rule being Rule No.37 where it is specified that all suits and legal proceedings of any kind against the organisation shall be instituted in the appropriate Courts in New Delhi/Delhi notwithstanding the location of the property which may be subject matter of the dispute.
I have considered the rival contention of the parties. Section 11(2) of the Act deals with the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum which reproduces below –
“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in District Forum within the limits of whose jurisdiction –
- the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
- any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of 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 cases either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not resides, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
- the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.
The factual matrix makes it abundantly clear that Appellants business is spread all over the country and they are offering their services throughout the country including Asansol within the District Burdwan where they undertook to raise a building under the name and style “DU in Rail Bihar Asansol Group Housing Scheme, Phase-II. The Appellants have their own office being the office of Project Engineer, IRWO, Rail Bihar, Asansol at Premises No.83, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Murgasol, Asansol – 713303 within the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the part of the cause of action arose in Asansol within the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum and as such it has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This Commission fully endorsed the view of the Ld. District Forum that it had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter because a legislative mandate as codified in Section 11(2) of the Act cannot be taken away by framing a rule by any organisation.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the Ld. District Forum had no reason to impose penal interest @ 8% p.a. or to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- or litigation cost of Rs.500/- as the respondent himself also contributed negligence behind such occurrence.
In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgement is modified to the extent that the appellants/opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the respondent/complainant within 30 days from date, otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this date till its full realisation.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of on contest.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan for information.
