BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Hitesh Verma, s/o Sh.O.P. Verma, r/o #1234, Sector 15, Panchkula

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]The General Manager, Sahara City Homes, Marketing & Sales Corporation India Bawan, I, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow (U.P.)

2]Regional Manager, Sahara City Homes, Marketing & Sales Corporation, SCO No. 1110-1111, Sector – 22, Chandigarh.

3]The Branch Manager, Sahara City Homes, Marketing & Sales Corporation, Second Floor, Neelkanth Complex, Camp Chowk, Delhi Road, Hissar.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

               DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL             MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             According to the complainant, he noticed an advertisement in the year 2004-05, regarding the Township Projects in various cities of India under the name of Sahara City Homes and booked on 23.02.05 a “Two Bed Room Type-B Flat” at their Chandigarh unit through their Hissar Branch.  As per the advertisement, possession was to be given in the year 2007. The complainant deposited Rs.85,750/- at Hissar Branch and his membership was confirmed on 18.07.05, vide Annexure C-3.  The complainant thereafter deposited 10% of the sale price vide Annexure C-4 and the rest of the amount was to be paid in installments.  The complainant however came to know that land acquired by the OP for construction of flats is in village Bhabat, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar and not in Chandigarh. He made request to the OP by visiting their Hissar and Chandigarh branches to compensate him but they did not.  He then served a legal notice and thereafter filed the present complaint.

2]             We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have perused the record to decide as to whether this Forum has Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute or not.

3]             It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is now well settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic.  The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and before issue of notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4]             The complainant had booked the flats with Sahara City Homes with whom the amount was deposited.  Interestingly, Sahara City Homes has not been made a party in this complaint rather the complainant has filed this complaint against their General Manager, Regional Manager and Branch Manager.  It is of common knowledge that Sahara City Homes is a different entity than its General Manager, Regional Manager and Branch Manager, who are just its employees.  There may be several General Managers, Regional Managers or Branch Managers but they would not constitute Sahara City Homes, which is totally a different entity. The complainant has not been able to show if he had any contract with any of the said Managers or if the money was paid to any of them. Viewed from this angle, the complaint against the said Managers would not be maintainable.

5]             Annexure C-1 is the pamphlet on the basis of which the complainant had deposited the amount with the OP. At page 4 of Annexure C-1 under the heading Chandigarh, it is mentioned that (Project Site) is 20 kms from the main city, 14 kms from the Railway Station, 9 kms from Airport and 20 kms from the bus stand.  The pamphlet shows as to where the said site is located.  The complainant has down loaded Annexure C-5 from the internet, which also records the same thing.  Annexure C-6 is the location map of the said site showing that it is Ajitgarh Town on Zirakpur-Rajpura Road.  In this location map also the distance from the city centre, railway station, airport and bus stand has been reproduced.  The complainant has argued that he booked the flat presuming that the site was located inside Chandigarh and therefore if the location is outside Chandigarh, Chandigarh Fora would have the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. We are afraid if the jurisdiction can be conferred on such presumptions.

6]             In order to ascertain as to which Consumer Fora would have jurisdiction, we have to go through Section 11 of the Act which provides as follows:

                (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the                          District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain                               complaints where the value of the goods or                                  services and the compensation, if any, claimed                             [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].

                (2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a District                             Forum within the local 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 District Forum 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.

7]             The complainant argued that the OP has a branch office in Chandigarh and therefore in view of Clause (a), Chandigarh Consumer Fora would have the jurisdiction.  He has cited certain Authorities in support of his contention but in our opinion, those would not be relevant. In the case Sonie Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 17(2) of the Act (which is also para materia with Section 11) held that the Branch office in section 17(2) means the Branch office where the cause of action has arisen. In the present case no doubt the OPs have branch office at Chandigarh but no cause of action has accrued at Chandigarh and therefore the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh would not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.

8]             It is admitted that the booking amount was deposited by the complainant at Hissar Branch office of the OP.  The Head Office of the OP is admittedly at Lucknow in U.P.  The construction of the project was to be carried at village Bhabat near Zirakpur in District S.A.S. Nagar as admitted in para 5 of the complaint and as depicted from Annexure C-6, down loaded by the complainant from internet. If the construction was to be raised in the area of District S.A.S. Nagar and if the same has not been started, the cause of action cannot be said to have arisen at Chandigarh, where nothing had happened.

9]             The complainant has argued that they were told that the construction would be raised at Chandigarh but it was actually to be raised in the areas of S.A.S. Nagar would also give him a cause of action to file the complaint at Chandigarh.  We do not find any merit in this argument.  In such cases, the OP is to mention the nearest important city for the information of the general public.  When having clearly mentioned the location of the project being  20 kms from the main city, 14 kms from the Railway Station, 9 kms from Airport and 20 kms from the bus stand of Chandigarh and have even given the site plan Annexure C-6 of the location being on Zirakpur-Rajpura Road, it cannot be said if the OPs have mislead their customers and are guilty of unfair trade practice.  Everybody knows that Chandigarh comprises of various sectors, there is no mention in the advertisement if the project would be located in any of the sectors.  It is of common knowledge that the boundary of Chandigarh does not extend upto 20 kms from the bus stand or 14 kms from the railway station. The entire necessary information has been given by the OPs not only in Annexure C-1 but also in their site on the internet, a copy of which is Annexure C-5.

10]            The complainant has argued that he had served a notice Annexure C-7 on the OPs, which was served at Chandigarh and therefore the receipt of notice would give a cause of action to him for filing the present complaint.  We however, do not subscribe to this view. The notice could be served by the complainant at his own choice on any person by giving any address.  He has given the address of the branch office at Chandigarh and could give the address of any other branch office in India and if the notice was served at that branch office, no jurisdiction could be conferred on the said Consumer Fora.

11]            Now there are Consumer Forum established at almost every District Headquarter.  There is a Consumer Forum at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, which is hardly 10 kms from Chandigarh. If the complainant had been honest in his dealings, he could have gone to Mohali for filing the present complaint within jurisdiction of which the site advertised by the OPs is located and where the construction has not been started so far. He however has not been able to explain as to why he has not approached the proper Consumer Fora having jurisdiction over the dispute and prefers to file this complaint at Chandigarh, where no cause of action had accrued nor the OPs are working at Chandigarh but they only have a branch office in Chandigarh under the jurisdiction of which no cause of action accrued.

12]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.  The same is therefore dismissed in limine, giving the complainant liberty to file the same before the Consumer Forum having jurisdiction to entertain and try it.                                                                        

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.