Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1570/2016

HARSH BHARGAVA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MADHUR PRABHAT

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                              Date of Arguments:23.01.17

     Date of Decision:27.01.17

Complaint No. 1570/2016

 

In the matter of:

1.         Harsh Bhargava

            S/o Ramesh Chand Bhargava

           R/o Plot No. 553, Scheme No. 2  

            Near Water Works

            Lajpat Nagar

            Alwar Rajasthan

            PIN 301001

 

2.         Manju Bhargava

            W/o Ramesh Chand Bhargava

            R/o Plot No. 553, Scheme No. 2  

            Near Water Works

            Lajpat Nagar

            Alwar Rajasthan

            PIN 301001                                                                     ……Complainant/Petitioner

                                               

                                                            Versus

 

1.         Unitech Limited

            6 Community Centre

            Saket

            New Delhi-110017                                                …Opposite Party/Respondent

                                   

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

           

                                                           JUDGEMENT

          The facts relevant at the stage of admission of the complaint for hearing are that on 05.03.12 Smt. Nidhi Chadha/predecessor in interest of the complainant booked Floor No. 1, Block E on Plot No. 64 in Wild Country, Sector 70, Gurgaon.  In February 2013 the complainant was approached by employees of OP and informed that there was resale of booked independent floor, possession of which would be given within 13 months.  The complainant got endorsed booking of Smt. Nidhi Chadha on 24.05.2013.  OP received Rs. 25,35,279/- from the complainant as per article IV of agreement dated 05.03.12.  The possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of agreement.  Hence this complaint for refund of amount with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

2.         The sole question which arises is whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction.  The project is located in Gurgaon, Haryana.  Agreement was executed at Gurgaon, Haryana as per copy of buyer agreement at pages 11 to 23. The payment was made through cheque drawn on Alwar Branch, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur as per copy of the receipt at page 24.  Other receipts show the name of banker as State Bank, Gurgaon.  No part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.

3.         Counsel for complainant submitted that regd. Office of the OP is  in New Delhi. I think that alone is not sufficient. Regd. Office is equivalent to branch office/one of the offices.  The same has to be coupled with cause of action as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical IV (2009) CPJ 40.

4.         The complaint is returned for presentation to State Commission, Haryana.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

                                                                                                                                        (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)