DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No. 102/17

Vijay Kumar Chauhan

S/o Late S.L Chauhan

K-003, Stellar Jeevan,

Greater Noida (W)

UP-201306

….Complainant

Versus

Stellar Constellation Project Pvt. Ltd.

B-29, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I

New Delhi-110017

       ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :    21.03.2017   

 Date of Order            :    27.12.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.      Succinctly put, complainant and his wife booked a flat, K-003, Stellar Jeevan, , Sector-1, Greater Noida (W) in the year, 2010 with Stellar Constellation Project Pvt Ltd. ( OP).

2.      Complainant’s grievance is that at the time of handing over the possession of the flat to the Complainant, portion of the boundary wall adjacent to the flat and car parking, had not been constructed by OP. OP promised that the needful will be done within a month, which did not happen. Complainant is aggrieved due to non construction of the local boundary wall as the area near his flat has become a thoroughfare for all intruders/non-resident of the area, stray animals, dogs etc. It has become dumping place of various garbage and other unwanted material for the resident of the block as well as passerby,  resultantly  foul smell emanates in the areas near the flat of the complainant. It is  stated that complainant’s elder son got sick  due to infection generated by  the accumulated garbage near the flat  of the complainant.

3.      Thus aggrieved, complainant approached this commission with prayer to direct OP to construct the unconstructed wall of parking area and road and roof of the basement within a month. It is also prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony , harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

4.      Rejoinder to the written statement of OP is filed. Evidence and written arguments are filed on behalf of parties. Material placed on record is perused. Submissions made by the parties are heard.

 5.     Before we go into the merits of the cases, we think it appropriate to decide the preliminary objection of OP regarding the ‘Territorial Jurisdiction’ pointed at the time of final arguments and also finds mention in the written arguments of the OP. OP has raised an objection stating that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint.

6.      The Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No.458/2017 titled as Star Health and Allied  Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Bansal & Ors, decided on 21.12.2017 has held that-

“…it can safely be said that for the purpose of consumer complaints, relating to normal contracts for service and/or        goods, cause of action arises inter-alia at any of the places, where; (a) the contract is made; and/or (b)  where acceptance of the contract is communicated and/or (c) where the contract is performed or is to be performed and/or (d) where money under the contract is either payable or paid and/or (e) where repudiation of the contract is received if any.”

7.      Hon’ble State Commission in Sarvesh Kumar Singh vs Kailash Healthcare Hospital 2019 (3) CPR 627 referred to Bhaiya Ram Sahoo vs Vipin Jain in FA12/183 decided on 1810.2012 wherein it is held that;

        “location of registered office is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on district forum. Cause of action must also accrue to determine the territorial jurisdiction.”

8.     Upholding the judgment Supra Hon’ble NCDRC  in the judgment dated 01.07.2019 further clarified & held that:

          “The word “or” contained in sub-section 2(a) and in sub-section 2(b) of section 17 could albeit be interpreted to mean that the complaint can be in instituted either where the opposite party no.1 head office is located i.e Delhi or where the opposite party no.2 hospital is located i.e Noida, U.P. or where the cause of action arose i.e Noida, U.P.

          However, an absurd interpretation, drawn mechanically, without application of mind, without reason and logic, can not be made.

                                        *****

To readily see the consequences of such absurd interpretation, if a chain of several hospitals is located from say Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and the incident of alleged medical negligence takes place in a hospital located at say Kanyakumri, and accordingly the cause of action also arose at Kanyakumari, and another hospital of the same chain is located at Kashmir, and a number of other hospitals of the same chain and its head office and branch offices are situated in a number of locations across the country, a  complaint can be made in the Sate Commission having territorial jurisdiction over any of the said ‘n’  number of location from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, with total disregard to where the cause of action arose.

Such absurd interpretation would lead to an absurd situation, with added malefics of both harassment and bench-hunting.”

9.     The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.

 9.     On perusal of the material placed before us, it is noticed that the Corporate office of the OP is in Greater Noida. Complainant is residing in the project at Greater Noida, UP. All agreements, sub-lease and possession letter etc was made at Greater Noida. No cause of action has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of this commission.

10.    In view of the discussion above we find that the complaint is not maintainable as it lacks the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction within 4 weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.

          File be consigned to the record room after retaining one copy of the complaint and returning the file to the complainant.