Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/569/2016

Anu Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/569/2016
Date of Institution	:	22/07/2016
Date of Decision	:	16/07/2018

 

Anu Garg d/o Late Sh. M.R. Garg (earlier resident of H.No.1141, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh), now resident of H.No.1080, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Unitech Limited, Fixed Deposit Division, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.136, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122016 through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

2.     Unitech Limited, 6, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017 through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

3.     R.R. Investor’s Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (earlier at SCO 222-223, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh) Now at SCO 89, First Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh through Director/ Authorised Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Smt. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Harsh Nagra, Counsel for OP-3

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The sum and substance of the allegations are, the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs 1 & 2 through OP-3 and the same was renewed on 25.7.2013.  The said FDR was to mature on 25.7.2014 and the rate of interest was 11.50%.  On advice from OPs 1 & 2, the FDR was handed over to OP-3 for repayment.  However, only an amount of Rs.4,850/- was paid to the complainant instead of the full maturity amount of Rs.44,850/- which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for payment of the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith agreed interest, compensation and litigation expenses. 
2.         OPs 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement (albeit OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte) and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the FDR had been issued by the registered office of OPs 1 & 2 at New Delhi.  Payment against the said FDR was to be made by the FD office at Gurgaon and, therefore, no cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  Reference was made to various case laws in this regard. On merits it is claimed, due to financial crisis, amount could not be paid.  Inability to pay the amount was due to global market recession which was beyond the control of the OPs. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 22.9.2016, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         OP-3 filed its separate written reply whereby it claimed of being only an agent of OPs 1 & 2 and had no control over their acts. Averred, consumer complaint against it is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act and by the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Motors Ltd. Vs. Anurag Mittal. On merits it is denied OP-3 is liable to pay the amount. 
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, firstly we take up for disposal the preliminary objection raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and decide the present consumer dispute.  Per title of the consumer complaint, office of OP-1 is situated at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana.  The FDR had been issued by the registered office of OPs 1 & 2 at New Delhi.  Payment against the said FDR was to be made by the FD office at Gurgaon, Haryana. There is no dispute with regard to existence of these facts.  OP-3 was merely a facilitator of repayment of amount of maturity and no liability is to be discharged by him. 
8.         Perusal of the fixed deposit (Annexure C-1) further shows office of OPs 1 & 2 situated at Gurgaon and OP-3 was merely a facilitator i.e. a link officer. In a squarely similarly situated case titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. & Ors., bearing First appeal No.509 of 2015, decided on 11.1.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission  held as under :-

“Perusal of record reveals that all FDRs were issued by registered office of opposite party- Unitech Ltd. situated at New Delhi which were signed by duly authorized signatory of New Delhi office.  Merely because complainant presented FDRs for release of maturity amount at branch office of opposite party No. 1 i.e. opposite party No. 3’s branch office, which were sent by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1, State Commission at Chandigarh where branch office of opposite party No. 3 is situated, does not get territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint.  Learned State Commission after referring judgment of this Commission in Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd. IV (2003) CPJ 26 (NC’s  case and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical  Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), rightly observed that no cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission at Chandigarh and rightly returned complaint for presentation before appropriate forum having territorial jurisdiction.”

Further our own Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled Sh. S.P. Agrawal & Anr. vs. M/s Unitech Limited, & Ors., bearing Appeal No.78 of 2018 decided on 15.5.2018 held as under :-

“4.    By making reference to the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was specifically noticed by the Forum  that no action was taken  qua issuance of FDRs by the OPs No.1 to 4 within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. When rejecting the claim raised by the complainants, it was rightly said that no cause of action had accrued to the complainants/appellants within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. To support the above view, reference was made to many judgments. We are of the opinion that the view expressed by the Forum is perfectly justified.  Counsel for the appellants failed to show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order, under challenge.

6.     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld.”

Even this Forum in case titled as Reena Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. & Ors., bearing Consumer Complaint No.286 of 2015 decided on 28.12.2015 held as under :-

                “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.

9.         In view of the above referred precedents of the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission, we are bound by the ratio of law laid down therein and hold that the District Forum at Gurgaon has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present consumer complaint and not this Forum. Hence, the instant consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The consumer complaint alongwith documents be returned to the complainant against proper receipt after retaining photocopy thereof with the remarks that it be presented before the Forum of competent jurisdiction i.e. the District Forum, Gurgaon (Haryana).
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/07/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President