Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/58/2015

Ashish Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balkar Singh & Suresh Saran, Adv.

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	58 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.04.2015

 

Ashish Arora son of Sh. R.K. Arora, resident of House No.840, Sector 2, Panchkula (Haryana).

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Unitech Limited, through its Chief Managing Director, registered Office: 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110007.
2. Rakesh Chhabra, Sr. Manager Marketing, Unitech Ltd., Marketing Office, Unitech Ltd., SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

              .... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                  

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.   

           

            The facts, in brief, are that Bhuvan Developers Private Limited, New Delhi booked a residential plot, with the Opposite Parties, vide application dated 23.01.2008, in their project, launched under the name and style “Gardens”, Sector 97, Uniworld City, Mohali, Punjab. Bhuvan Developers Private Limited was allotted plot No.0079, Block-C, measuring 358.80 square yards, in the said project, vide allotment letter dated 23.01.2008 Annexure C-1. The total sale consideration of the said plot was to the tune of Rs.53,37,150/-. It was stated that later on, the said plot was purchased by the complainant, from Bhuvan Developers Private Limited. Transfer of allotment, in respect of the said plot, in favour of the complainant was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 15.04.2008, at page 16 of the file.  The amount of Rs.13,45,500/- paid by Bhuvan Developers Private Limited, to the Opposite Parties, in respect of the plot, in question, was credited to the account of the complainant, which fact was also acknowledged by them, vide letter dated 15.04.2008.

2.       It was further stated that the Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.05.2008 Annexure C-3, in respect of the said plot, was executed between the parties. It was further stated that, however,  as per Article 4.a) of the Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.05.2008 Annexure C-3, it was depicted that the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the  complainant within a period of 36 months, from the date of execution of same (Agreement) i.e. by 04.05.2011. It was further stated that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.27,80,700/- towards part price of the said plot, by 04.09.2008.
3.       It was further stated that, in the meanwhile, the  complainant kept on asking the Opposite Parties, about the requisite permissions/approvals, layout plans etc. etc., and also with regard to the provision of basic amenities, in respect of the project, in question, but no satisfactory reply was given by them.
4.       It was further stated that possession of the plot, in question, was not delivered to the complainant, by the stipulated date. It was further stated that the  complainant visited the site, where the plot, in question, was carved, and was surprised to see that no development activity was going on there. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant kept on visiting the Office of the Opposite Parties, with a request to apprise him, regarding the status of the project and also delivery of possession of the said plot, in his favour, but to no avail.
5.       It was further stated that when the complainant saw that the Opposite Parties were not in a position to deliver possession of the plot, in question, he sought refund of the amount, deposited by him, but they (Opposite Parties) failed to do so. It was further stated that despite payment of an amount of Rs.27,80,700/-,  in respect of part price of the said plot, till date the possession thereof, had not even been offered by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were requested, a number of times, to refund the amount paid by the complainant, but to no avail.
6.       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to deliver possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects; or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.27,80,700/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay Rs.17,00,000/-, as compensation for deficiency, in rendering service, adoption of unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment; compensation/ penalty as per Clause 4 (c) of the Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.05.2008 Annexure C-3, and Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation. 
7.       The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
8.       We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
9.       The principal question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got the territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. Admittedly, the project, in the name and style of “Gardens”, Sector 97, Uniworld City, in which the plot, in question, was purchased by the complainant, in the manner, referred to above, is situated at Mohali, Punjab. The Buyer’s Agreement dated 05.05.2008 Annexure C-3 was also executed between the parties, at New Delhi, as is evident from page 26 of the file. All the documents, viz. allotment letter dated 23.01.2008 Annexure C-1, transfer letter dated 15.04.2008, in respect of the plot, in question, payment schedule at pages 17 and 18 of the file, and the copies of receipts at pages 19 to 24 of the file, clearly reveal that the same had been issued by the Opposite Parties, at Gurgaon. Not even a single document, has been placed, on record, by the complainant, to prove that any cause of action accrued to him, at Chandigarh.
10.       No doubt, according to the Counsel for the complainant, payments towards the price of the said plot, were made at the Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. However, no document was produced, on the record, showing that these payments were made at Chandigarh. Whereas, on the other hand, as stated above, all the receipts, copies whereof are at pages 19 to 24, vide which, various payments towards part price of the plot were made by the complainant, do not show that these were issued at Chandigarh, or the amount was received by any of the authorized signatory of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. It may be stated here, that it was for the complainant, to establish that he actually made payments, at the Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh, and the receipts were issued to him, by an authorized signatory, of their Branch office, at Chandigarh. Since, the complainant failed to prove the factum, that any cause of action accrued to him, within the territorial Jurisdiction of Chandigarh, in our considered opinion, this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. While interpreting the provisions of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV(2009) CPJ 40(SC), the Apex Court held 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].”

11.            The perusal of the facts of Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), clearly goes to reveal that the Policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala; the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. In Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. 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).
12.       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).
13.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14.       The file, be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

April 1, 2015

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg.