State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Air Cmde B.K.Gandhi 2534 vs Airforce Naval Housing Board on 24 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 2014
Date of Institution : 04.04.2014
Date of decision : 24.04.2014
AIR CMDE B.K.Gandhi 2534, Sector D-2, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi-110070.
...Complainant
Versus
1. Airforce Naval Housing Board, Air force Station, Race Course,
New Delhi through its Chairman/Director General/Managing
Director/Secretary.
2. Airforce Naval Housing Board, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave,
Kharar, Mohali through its Director General.
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram.
Present:-
For the complainant : Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short the 'Act'), for the issuance of the following directions to the opposite parties:-
a) To pay damages / compensation to the tune of Rs.26 lacs (Rs.1 lacs for loss for inconvenience, Rs.12 lacs for mental harassment, pain and agony, Rs.12 lacs for compensation/damages and Rs.1 lac for cost of litigation);
b) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per day as compensation/damges for further delay in handing over the flat; Consumer complaint No. 66 of 2014 2
c) to pay compensation for inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the flat;
d) to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the total amount deposited by him from the respective dates of deposit;
e) to restrain from charging escalation charges due to the delay in construction of the flat.
2. The facts to be taken notice, at the pre-liminary stage of the complaint, are that the complainant submitted an application to the opposite parties for Category 'A-I' flat measuring 1900 Sq. ft. costing Rs.30.78 lacs in the housing project Kharar (Greater Mohali) in the year 2007, which was confirmed by them vide letter dated 18.01.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment the expected time for the completion of the project and handing over the possession of the flat was to be the end of 2009. However, the project was not completed by that time. Some flats were allotted by way of draw of lots. In one of such draw he was allotted flat No.H204 with basement parking No.323 and additional open parking No.299. He made representation for handing of the possession of that flat but the same was not done. The opposite parties reviewed progress of the project and even as per the adverse circumstances, including ban on sand and stone, the expected date of handing of the possession of the flats was end of September 2011, with fully intentional and integrated essential services. Still the project was not completed by that date and due to the slow progress of the work the final instalment of the project was deferred. He had been making payments from time to time towards the price of the flat; which was Rs.30.78 lacs. In all he paid Rs.34,48,091/-, against the demanded price of Consumer complaint No. 66 of 2014 3 Rs.44,41,190/-. He was also charged for car parking, but, possession of the flat was not delivered to him. The agreement was also executed between him and the opposite parties. As per the Escalation Clause thereof there is no upper limit and the question involved is, whether there can be deviation to the tune of 30 to 40 % of the original cost of the project. The delay in handing over the possession amounts to deficiency in service. The payments have been received from them in excess.
3. The complaint has been filed on the basis of the allotment letter dated 18.01.2007 which contains the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties. Clause No.27 and 28 thereof deal with the jurisdiction of the Courts/Forums for deciding the disputes between the parties and the same are reproduced below:-
"27. Court Cases: the Registrant/allotee may take recourse to court only after he has exhausted all avenues of redress. The Board being a registered society shall sue and be sued in the name of the Director/General. No other officer of the Board or any member of the Board of Management shall be a party to any legal proceedings. All suits and legal proceedings of any kind against the Board shall be instituted in the appropriate Courts in Delhi/New Delhi, notwithstanding the location of the property, which may be the subject matter of dispute. No suits or legal proceedings of any kind shall be instituted against the Board unless a notice in writing has been delivered to Board stipulating the nature of claim, cause of action, relief sought, name, registration number and address of the Consumer complaint No. 66 of 2014 4 person, and a period of two months has expired thereafter. The expenditure incurred by the Board will be on the allottee/project account depending upon whether the complainant is an individual/society etc. respectively.
28.Jurisdiction: In the event of any dispute arising with regard to the terms and conditions of allotment or possession of dwelling unit, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of District Court at Delhi or the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
4. Faced with these Clauses it was submitted by counsel for the complainant that the flat which was so allotted to the complainant is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Commission and as such this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the above said Clauses do not oust its jurisdiction.
5. We are unable to endorse this view of the learned counsel. Both these Clauses limit the jurisdiction of the Courts/Forums which were to have jurisdiction to decide the consumer disputes arising between the parties. That jurisdiction has been conferred only upon the Courts/Forums at New Delhi/Delhi. The position would have been different if the Courts/Forums at that place had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Opposite party No.1 is having its Head/Registered Office at that place alone and as such Courts/Forums at that place have also the territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide this complaint. It is well-settled law that where more than one Court/Forum has the territorial jurisdiction the Consumer complaint No. 66 of 2014 5 parties can confer that territorial jurisdiction on one of those Courts and exclude the territorial jurisdiction of the other Courts. Therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to file the complaint on the same subject matter before appropriate Fora.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) April 24, 2014 MEMBER Kumud Consumer complaint No. 66 of 2014 6