Delhi

New Delhi

CC/46/2016

Manish Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./46/2016                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

1.     SMT. MANISHA AGARWAL,

        W/o Sh. Girdhar Gopal Agarwal,

        R/o G. Gopal & Co. (CA), Purana Mill,

        Hathras, U.P.

       

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     TDI INGRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

        Through its Managing Dirctor Sh. Kamal Taneja

        Bhagat Singh Marg, 10 Gole Market,

        New Delhi-110003.

 

.... OPPOSITE PARTY-I

 

2.     M/S SWAMI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.

        Having its Registered Office at:

        Rahul Vihar, Shamshabad Road,

        Agra-282001

       

.....OPPOSITE PARTY-2

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

 

ORDER

By this order, we shall decide the question of admission of the complaint. The present complaint is filed by the complainant against two opposite parties OP 1 being TDI Infrastructure Private Limited of New Delhi and OP 2, M/S Swami Build Tech Private Limited of Agra. The brief facts disclosed by the complainant in the complaint are that OP 2 was allotted land by Agra Development Authority in Agra being plot number 3D. Situated at, Phase 1, Taj Nagri , Agra reserve.  The complainant entered into a buye agreement with OP 2 on 1/10/2007 for purchase of a shop/commercial unit number 17, having recovered area of 645.76 sqr. ft. on the first floor of the proposed TDI Mall, Agra for a cumulative amount of Rs.30,75,000/– and complainant has made the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/– the complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/– for causing mental agony to the complainant by not giving possession of the shop with 10% pendant light and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question of admission of the complaint. The jurisdiction of this District Forum is claimed on the ground that one of the two opposite parties is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. When asked what is the role of OP 1, whose office is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum, the learned counsel for complainant could only point out that there was an agreement between the two opposite parties, with regard to construction of the property in question, but no document is filed to show it.

A perusal of the complaint and record of this complaint case shows that the property in question is situated in Agra and the agreement between complainant and OP 2 also shows that it was executed in Agra and OP 2 has also its registered office at Agra. Even if there is any agreement regarding construction of the commercial property between the two opposite parties, the complainant is not a party to it to claim any relief against OP 1. The agreement is executed between complainant and OP 2 of Agra and it is a bilateral and not tripartite agreement between the parties. There is no privity of contract between complainant and OP 1 and the payment for the purpose of acquiring property is made by complainant to OP 2. The land in question is also situated in Agra and not in Delhi and the property/shop in question was to be built in Agra. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this district Forum and the main dispute is  between complainant and OP 2, the letter being having its registered office in Agra where the property in question is situated. OP 1 seems to have been unnecessarily roped in the present complaint to somehow make it appear that this District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

        In view of the above discussion, we are of considered view that neither the concerned necessary party i.e. OP 2 has its office within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum nor any cause of action or its any part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. The complaint is not maintainable before this District Forum. Therefore, we direct that the complaint, be returned against receipt along with the documents filed with the complaint by retaining  the copies of the same, to the complainant for filing before the concerned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Agra. A copy of this order be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

  File be consigned to record room.  

   Pronounced in open Forum on 08/08/2016.

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                      (H M VYAS)                                    (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                             MEMBER                                           MEMBER