Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/322/2015

Rakesh Kumar Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Kathuria Adv.

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	322/2015
Date of Institution	:	18.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	16.11.2015

 

                                                

                                                         

Rakesh Kumar Mahajan r/o Flat No.299-A, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh -160047.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Unitech Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Plot No.136, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122016, Haryana through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Unitech Ltd., SCO No.189-190-191(1^st Floor), Sector 17-C, Chandigarh -160017 through its Asst Manager-Business Development (FD) Sh.Nitish Kapoor.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Gorav Kathuria, Adv. for the complainant

                   Ms.Vertika H.Singh, Adv. for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he invested in the fixed deposit scheme of the OPs for a period of one year and at the time of investment, the OPs had assured him that they would return the invested amount along with interest immediately after/on the date of maturity of the fixed deposit scheme. A copy of the FDR dated 03.02.2013 is Annexure C-1.  After the date of maturity, the complainant approached the OPs a number of times to return the maturity amount but they failed to return the same. Ultimately, he got served the Opposite Parties with a legal notice dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure C-2) but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In their written statement, the OPs have admitted the factual matrix with regard to the deposit of the amount by the complainant in the fixed deposit scheme of the OPs. However, it took the preliminary objection that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  It has further been pleaded that the OPs have already approached the CLB for re-schedulement for making payment to its depositors and hence the matter is subjudice before the CLB. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.  He has specifically submitted that this Forum has got the necessary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           In view of the specific objection taken by the Opposite Parties we would first like to see if this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
6.           The perusal of the FDR (Annexure C-1) placed on record by the complainant himself shows that the same has been issued by the Unitech Ltd., Regd. Office  & Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 and payment thereof was also to be made by the Delhi Office of the OPs. Moreover, the amount for issuance of the aforesaid FDR has been sent by the complainant to the registered office of the OPs at New Delhi. The Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a permanent resident of Chandigarh and the OPs had a Branch Office at Chandigarh who had approached him to invest in the fixed deposit Scheme and as such cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint at Chandigarh.  There is no dispute that the complainant is a resident of Chandigarh. However, the complainant has miserably failed to place on record any reliable documentary evidence to show that a part of cause of action has arisen to him within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In this view of the matter, mere existence of the Branch Office of the OPs at Chandigarh does not confer jurisdiction upon this Forum to entertain and decide the present complaint. Here we are also strengthened by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) and the operative part of the same reads as under :-

 “4.    In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

                   XXX                         XXX                     XXX

8.      Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the 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)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the 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 plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity [vide G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].”

7.           Our view is further bolstered from the order dated 20.05.2015 passed in an identical by our own Hon’ble State Commission C.C. No.92 of 2015 –Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. and others, the relevant paras of the said order reads as under:-

“5.              No doubt, the complainant averred that the FDRs were surrendered in the office of Opposite Party No.3 at Chandigarh for obtaining the maturity amount and the same were duly stamped by the said office at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the FDRs were surrendered to Opposite Party No.3, at Chandigarh, did not give rise to any cause of action at Chandigarh. Opposite Party No.3 was only to send the FDRs to the Registered Office at Unitech Limited at New Delhi, for payment of the maturity value. Opposite Party No.3 was only to act as a facilitator. The amount for issuance of the FDRs was sent by the complainant to the Registered Office of Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi. As stated above, the FDRs were also issued by the Registered Office of Unitech Limited, New Delhi. The maturity value of the FDRs was to be paid by the Registered Office (issuing office) of Unitech Limited, New Delhi.

“9.    …………….It is, therefore, held that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint and, as such, the same (complaint) is liable to be returned to the complainant, for presenting the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).

10.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, in original, alongwith the documents, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, against valid receipt,  after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint)”.

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case.  Hence, from the above scenario, it is clear that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh so as to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

8.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Accordingly, without touching the merits of the present complaint, the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty, to approach the appropriate Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.11.2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER