DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:88 of 2011] Date of Institution :17.02.2011 Date of Decision :01.02.2012 -------------------------------------- [1] Smt. Anita Devi wife of Sh. Kuldeep Singh; [2] Sh. Kuldeep Singh son of Sh. Sudarshan Singh; Both resident of House No.399, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh. ….Complainants. (VERSUS) [1] The Managing Director, OMAXE Limited, Head Office, S.C.O. No.143-44, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8, Chandigarh. [2] The Chairman, OMAXE Limited, House, Regd. Office 7, Local Shopping Centre Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019. [3] The Company of M/s. OMAXE Limited (Formerly Omaxe Construction Limited), Registered Office at 7, Local Shopping Centre Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110019 through its authorised signatory.. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Hari Kishan, Advocate for the complainants. Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Smt. Anita Devi and her husband Sh. Kuldeep Singh have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed :- i) To refund an amount of Rs.12,64,000/- deposited by the complainants with the OPs along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.1,58,895/- for non construction of the flat within the prescribed period; iii) To pay compensation for mental agony and harassment; iv) To pay costs of litigation; v) To pay the amount of rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month since June, 2009, which the complainants are paying due to not handing over of possession of the allotted flat/unit; 2. The case of the complainants is that they purchased a Flat/Unit No.112, Block Kachnar-A measuring 89.46 Sq. Mtrs from the OPs in a Group Housing Project in the name and style of “Omaxe Parkwood” at Village Chakkan and Billanwali – Gujran, Pargana Dharampur, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. An agreement (Annexure II) was executed between the parties on 14.11.2006 for the sale of the said flat. As per the terms of the said agreement, OP agreed to sell the above said flat to the complainants for a sum of Rs.12,87,049.50Ps. The complainants paid Rs.1,28,000/- to the OPs at the time of booking vide Receipt No.222451 dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure I). Subsequently, they paid a sum of Rs.11,36,000/- towards the sale price of the said flat/unit vide Receipt No.66476 dated 08.12.2006 (Annexure III) after raising loan from BHW Home Finance Limited. Thus, they deposited a total sum of Rs.12,64,000/- with the OPs against the sale price of the said flat/unit. As per Clause 28(a) of the agreement, the possession of the said flat was to be offered within 18 months (with further provision of another 6 months) from the date of agreement. It has further been pleaded by the complainants that despite the fact that the complainants have already paid a huge amount of Rs.12,64,000/- towards the sale consideration of the said plot and that a period of almost more than four years had already expired from the date of agreement, the possession of the said flat has not been handed over to them. According to the complainants, despite letters/reminders dated 28.08.2010 and 17.09.2009 (Annexures IV & V respectively), OPs failed to offer the possession of the flat or refund its sale consideration. According to the complainants, non refund of the price of the flat amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, the fact regarding execution of the agreement for the sale of Flat/Unit No.112 in Block Kachnar-A measuring 89.46 Sq. Mtrs situated at Village Chakkan and Billanwali – Gujran, Pargana Dharampur, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan for Rs.12,87,049.50Ps has been admitted. Rests of the averments made in the complaint have been specifically denied by the OPs. According to OPs, in case of delay, other provisions of the agreement are applicable. It has been asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint deserves dismissal. OPs have also raised a specific preliminary objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction. According to OPs, no cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh and merely having a branch office of OPs at Chandigarh does not bring the dispute within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 4. The complainants filed replication to the written statement filed by OPs and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as well as the written arguments placed on record by the complainants. 6. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. According to the learned counsel for the OPs, the flat, regarding which the agreement was executed, is situated at Baddi, Distt. Solan (Himachal Pradesh). The payments were made at Delhi and the agreement was also executed at Delhi. Thus, no cause of action took place at Chandigarh. Therefore, merely because the OPs have their Branch Office at Chandigarh would not confer jurisdiction to the District Forum at Chandigarh. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the OPs has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC). 7. From the bare perusal of the agreement (Annexure II), it is apparently clear that the said agreement between the parties was executed at Delhi. Annexures C-I and C-III are the copies of receipts issued by OP No.2 against the receipt of payments from time to time. These receipts have been issued at Delhi and not even a single transaction had taken place at Chandigarh. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainants to prove that a part of cause of action took place at Chandigarh. Thus, it is undoubtedly proved on record that no cause of action took place at Chandigarh and the District Forum at Chandigarh does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. To our mind, the ratio of case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 1st February, 2012 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.88 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 27.01.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 01.02.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
