Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/286/2015

Reena Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Sharma

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

[1]

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/286/2015
Date of Institution	:	13/05/2015
Date of Decision	:	28/12/2015

 

Reena Kumar d/o Sh. Ravi Kumar r/o H.No.3014, Sector
19-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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

2.      Managing Director, Unitech Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Plot No.136, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon.

3.      The Local Head, Unitech Ltd., Regional Office : SCO 189-191, 1^st Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

[2]

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/287/2015
Date of Institution	:	13/05/2015
Date of Decision	:	28/12/2015

 

Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Ravi Kumar r/o H.No.3014, Sector
19-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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

2.      Managing Director, Unitech Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Plot No.136, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon.

3.      The Local Head, Unitech Ltd., Regional Office : SCO 189-191, 1^st Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for OPs

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         By this order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two similar consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2.         The facts are taken out from Consumer Complaint No.286 of 2015 titled as Reena Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. & Ors.
3.         Ms. Reena Kumar, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Unitech Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that she had purchased FDR for Rs.4.50 lacs @ 11.50% p.a. for one year having date of maturity as 18.12.2014 from the OPs through OP-3. The complainant surrendered the said FDR on 13.11.2014 with OP-3 and thereafter visited its office a number of times and also requested OPs 1 & 2 to release the maturity amount. The complainant has averred that she needed the money to invest in her business, but, the amount has not been released to her by the OPs despite service of legal notice dated 3.1.2015. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
4.         In their joint written statement, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint; that the complainant is not a consumer because she required the amount to invest in her business.  The factual matrix of the case has not been disputed.  It has been stated that the OPs have every bonafide intention to pay the depositors. It has been contended that it is only due to market recession that the company is facing severe funds crunch and for the redressal of the same it has already approached the Company Law Board so that none of its investors suffer any kind of losses and it can repay the amount invested by the investor in due course. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         In her replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated her own.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have perused the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
8.         The first material question for determination in this case is whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint or not? The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that though the FDR was issued by the registered office of M/s Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi, but, the same was purchased through OP-3 at Chandigarh and also surrendered before OP-3 i.e. the regional office Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Bliss Plantations Hills Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.N. Gupta, S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) 654, Ramesh Kumar Dua Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (2005-2008) 678 and Sadhu Vaswani Mission Vs. Sanjay Kedia & others, 2015 (1) CLT 521 (NC) and has vehemently argued that OP-3 is a local head/regional office of OPs 1 & 2 and is not a facilitator and since OP-3 is working for gain on behalf of OPs 1 & 2 at Chandigarh, therefore, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
9.         We have carefully considered the above arguments. After going through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that in those cases the question of territorial jurisdiction was decided after taking into consideration the material/evidence produced in those cases.  However, in the instant case, the position is entirely different.  The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to this effect that the FDR was purchased through OP-3. The mere fact that the complainant surrendered the FDR to OP-3 would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Forum.  In Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Limited & Ors., Complaint Case No.92 of 2015 (Annexure R-1) and Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Unitech Limited & Ors., Complaint case No.93 of 2015 (Annexure R-2), both decided on 20.5.2015 by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in almost similar circumstances, it was found that the FDRs were issued by the registered office of Unitech Ltd. situated at New Delhi and the same were bearing the stamp of New Delhi office of the OPs and the same were also signed by a duly authorised signatory of Unitech Limited on the revenue stamp. The mere fact that the FDRs were surrendered to OP-3 at Chandigarh did not give rise to any cause of action at Chandigarh because OP-3 had only to send the FDRs to the registered office of Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi for payment of the maturity value. It was held by the Hon’ble State Commission in the above said rulings that
   OP-3 was only to act as a facilitator and the amount for issuance of the FDRs was sent by the complainant to the registered office of Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi.  In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, which is based on the ruling of Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd., IV (2003) CPJ 26 (NC), decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, we feel that no part of cause of action accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
10.         Secondly, the complainant has pleaded in para 6 of the complaint that she needs the above said money to invest in her business. The fact that the complainant requires the money to invest in her business shows that the amount was invested in the FDR for commercial purposes and the complainant does not fall within the four corners of the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Needless to say the complainant shall be at liberty to file a complaint before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court having jurisdiction.
12.         The other consumer complaint, mentioned above, is also dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28.12.2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President