Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/107/2015

Rohit Chaudhari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Chaudhri

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/107/2015
Date of Institution	:	18/02/2015
Date of Decision	:	22/09/2015

 

 

 

Rohit Chaudhari through his lawful attorney Sh. R.L. Chaudhri, resident of 310, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      Unitech Ltd., SCO 189-90-91, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Estate Manager.

2.      Unitech Ltd., South City-1, NH-8, Gurgaon through its Director.

……Opposite Party

 

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

                                               

 

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vinod Chaudhri, Counsel for complainant
		Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for OPs

                                         

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Rohit Chaudhari, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Unitech Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that in response to an advertisement, he applied for a plot in South City-1 (in Gurgaon) and he was allotted Plot No.G-82. 

                According to the complainant, the OPs started charging maintenance charges of the plot without giving possession.  When the complainant sought clarification from the OPs, no tangible answer was given and they kept on raising the maintenance charges. The complainant regularly paid the maintenance charges as demanded by the OPs and upto 31.3.2015 had paid Rs.43,406/- under protest.  As per the complainant, the conduct of the OPs in increasing the charges from mere Rs.165/- per month to Rs.897/- per month is not only arbitrary but smacks of malafides and unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint. 

2.         In their joint written statement, OPs have taken a number of preliminary objections including that no cause of action arose at Chandigarh and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. It has been admitted that the complainant was allotted plot No.G-82, in South City 1, Gurgaon and maintenance charges were being charged from him which was Rs.2/- per sq. yard since the very beginning.  The minimal increase of 0.50/- paise was on account of overall inflation in the market during the span of 23 long years.  It has been averred that the complainant had chosen not to raise any construction on the plot despite reminders from the company, but, that did not absolve him from paying the maintenance charges for the upkeep of the area and facilities provided in the area. It has been stated that the OPs charged maintenance charges for common area and not for the maintenance of the plot.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own.  It has been contended that this Forum has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the controversy as almost all payments were made from Chandigarh and the OPs have a running office in Sector 17, Chandigarh.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The most material question for determination in this case is whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint or not?        It has been urged by the learned counsel for the complainant that the OPs are owning a complete infrastructure and full office in Sector 17, Chandigarh, and all the payments were made from Chandigarh, therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint. 
7.         We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, but, regret our inability to accept the same. It is significant to note that the property in question is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Gurgaon. The buyer agreement dated 28.8.1990 (Annexure R-1) with respect to Plot No.G/79, South City, Gurgaon was executed between the parties at New Delhi. The sale deed dated 28.2.1992 (Annexure R-2) of plot bearing No.82 in Block G, South City, situated at Village Silokhera, Jharsa and Sukhrali, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was registered at Gurgaon. The bill for maintenance service charges (Annexure C-1) has been raised by the Gurgaon office of the OPs.  Even the legal notices dated 30.12.2014 and 19.8.2014 (Annexure C-2 and C-3) have been served on the Gurgaon office of the OPs.  According to the OPs, all the payments have been made by the complainant to the Gurgaon office of the OPs and the receipts of the same have been issued by the Gurgaon office of the OPs. The complainant has failed to produce even a single document which could show that any of the payment was made to the Chandigarh office of the OPs and receipt was issued by Chandigarh office. The mere fact that a branch office of the OPs is existing in Chandigarh would not confer any jurisdiction upon this Forum because no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh.  In this context, attention can be had to the ruling Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2009) CPJ 40 SC.  In that case, the insurance policy was taken at Ambala, compensation claim was made at Ambala, fire broke down in a godown at Ambala, but, the complainant filed a consumer complaint at Chandigarh where a branch office of National Insurance Co. Ltd. was situated.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since no part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate. In this context, it would be appropriate to reproduce the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court :-

“……... 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].”

8.         It is also significant to note that the consumer complaints No.103 of 2015 decided on 29.5.2015, 58 of 2015 decided on 1.4.2015, 148 of 2015 decided on 31.7.2015, 93 of 2015 decided on 20.5.2015 and 92 of 2015 decided on 20.5.2015, filed by different consumers against the same very OPs, were decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh on the basis of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble State Commission held in all these cases that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints.
9.         Taking into consideration the various rulings mentioned above, since no part of cause of action accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Since we have no jurisdiction to try the complaint, we do not deem it proper to dilate upon the other issues involved in the complaint.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before a Forum/Court of competent jurisdiction. The documents alongwith the complaint be returned to the complainant against receipt after keeping photocopies of the same.   Parties are left to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
22/09/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President