Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/75/2020

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subham Housing - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Sharma

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

           

Om Parkash Vs. Shubham Housing Development Finance

 

Present:  Shri Anil Kumar Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

ORDER

              Heard on the maintainability of the complaint.

2.           The brief facts of the complaint are that the  in the month of September 2013 Sh.Neeraj Gupta, i.e. respondent no.2 contacted complainant at his address and assured that he will provide the loan to the complainant form his company for purchase of a house. On the assurance of the OP No.2, complainant entered into an agreement to purchase house for Rs.11,50,000/- and paid the advance of Rs.30,0000/-  to the seller.  It is averred that in the last week of September 2019, the OPno.2 came to complainant at this address at Pipli and asked for the documents such as agreement to sell, aadhar card, PANM card etc. and some signed cheques. The complainant  submitted all the documents and cheques of his account in the State Bank of India, Sector -5, Kurukshetra  to the OP No.2. After collecting  all these documents and cheques, the OP No.2 again assured the complainant that the loan of Rs.8,00,000/- would be  given to the complainant at the earliest It is further averred that in the first week of October 2019, the respondent no.1 and 2 demanded Rs.40,000/- in cash on account of  expenses for collection of revenue record, technical fee, advance fee for preparing legal search report etc. The complainant paid the amount in cash and again both the OPs assured that the loan would be sanctioned very soon.

3.           It is averred that 07.10.2019, OPs withdraw the amount of Rs.1710/- from the account of the ocmlpainant through cheque No.000727738 and again debited the amount of Rs.295/- from the account of the complainant on 4.11.2019. The OP No.1 and 2 informed the complainant that the loan of Rs.7,71,230/- has been sanctioned through the loan account No.OKAR1909000005023060 and demand draft will be handed over at the time of execution of the sale deed of the house but till date OPs did not  supply any document/sanction letter in this regard to the complainant.  On the assurance of OPs, the complainant started the process of execution of the sale deed and purchased the stamp duty of Rs.34500/- on 9.10.2019 and also got drafted the sale deed.  The complainant requested the OPs to hand over the demand draft so that the sale deed may be executed but the OP No.1 and 2 demanded Rs.30,000/- from the complainant before handing over the demand draft. The complainant was in problem and he has paid the stamp duty and paid  advance to the seller so he paid Rs.30,000/- to the OPs but the OPs did not hand over the demand draft of loan amount even after taking the money from the complainant. The OPs have also withdrawn the amount of Rs.13192/- on 7.11.2019 as installment from the account of the complainant.  The OPs refused to sanction the loan and the complainant has got the sale deed execution by borrowing the amount from his friends at the higher rate of interest. The complainant requested the OPs to sanction the loan but the OPs have failed to do the needful despite repeated requests and service of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to sanction the loan to the complainant so that he may return the borrowed amount or in the alternative hand over all the documents, cheques and to pay the amount received from the complainant and from his account.

4.           While arguing on the point of maintainability of the present complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that OP No.2 in the month of “September 2019 came to the house of the complainant and assured to pay the loan for the purchase of a house. He further argued that the cheques and documents were received by the OPs from the complainant from the address of the complainant i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the amount was also withdrawn by the OPs from the  bank account of the complainant  which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, this Forum has got every jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

5.           The complainant has impleaded Subham Housing Development Finance Co. Limited, Mugal Cannal, Karnal  as (OP NO.1), Sales Manager, Sh.Neeraj Gupta of Subham Housing Development Finance Co. Limited, Karnal as OP No.2 and Subham Housing Development Finance Company Limited, Plot No.425, Phase IV, Gurugram as OP No.3. None of the OPs are carrying on any business at Kurukshetra. The main question for consideration is as to whether  a complaint can be filed before this Forum at Kurukshetra  when none of the OPs are  not having their  branch offices at Kurukshetra  nor they (OPs) are working for gain  within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

6.           Hon’ble Supreme Court in case M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited  in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 has held that ”Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent-insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has  to be given  to the amended Section 17(2) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If  the  contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen  in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition  even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression “branch office” in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plan and literal words of Section 17(2) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. (Vide G.P.Singh Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.) In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint”    

7.           A perusal of the file shows that none of the Opposite Parties actually resides or carries on business for gain or have a branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor cause of action whether partly or wholly took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, this Forum at Kurukshetra has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and as such relying upon the case M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited,  the present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction.  The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 02.03.2020.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

   Member                            Member.