State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Amiya Lal Bhattacharjee vs M/S. Cosmic Construction on 29 March, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/54/2013 1. Sri Amiya Lal Bhattacharjee S/o Late Ashwini Bhattacharjee, Natunpatty, Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam, represented by constituted attorney Smt. Anamika Chakraborty, W/o Dr. Sisir Chakraborty, Sabinara Bye Lane, Rather Sarak, P.O. & P.S. Chandernagore, Dist. Hooghly. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Cosmic Construction (A Unit of Cosmic Industries Ltd.), CA-226, Salt Lake, Sector-I, Kolkata - 700 064. 2. Sri Sanjit Chakraborty Managing Director of Cosmic Industries Ltd., C-13, Bapuji Nagar, Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 092. 3. O.S.D. Regd. Office Cosmic Gr. of Companies, CA-226, Salt Lake, Sector - I, Kolkata - 700 064. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Barun Prasad , Advocate For the Opp. Party: None appears ORDER 29.3.2016 MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON'BLE MEMBER
The instant case u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Complainant for non-delivery of possession as well as non-execution of the registration of the flat located at Natunpatty, Silchar, Assam.
Facts of the case are, in brief, that the Complainant entered into an Agreement dt. 18.2.2009 with the OP Nos. 1 & 2 at Assam for purchase of a flat of 560 sq. ft. located at Silchar, Assam for a total consideration of Rs. 7,24,000/-, out of which Rs. 3,68,000/- were paid by the Complainant during the period from 13.12.2008 to 9.9.2009. The flat was to be delivered to the Complainant before February, 2010. But after payment of about 50% of the consideration as above, the Complainant came to know that the OP Nos. 1 & 2 had 'closed' the construction of the housing project involving the flat in question as also shifted their business activities from Silchar, Assam to Salt Lake, Sector-I, Kolkata-64, West Bengal. At this juncture, the Complainant sent on 9.2.2012 a legal Notice to the OP No. 1 and its Directors, most of whom having addresses at Assam, demanding refund of the money paid with interest @ 25% per annum. Thereupon, after repeated visits by the Complainant to the office of the OPs at Salt Lake, the OPs issued three cheques bearing No. 433539 dt. 28.8.2012, 433540 dt. 28.7.2012 and 433541 dt. 28.6.2012 of Rs. 1,20,000/- each, but the said cheques were dishonoured by the Bank concerned showing the ground of insufficient fund. Thus, the Complainant having got neither the flat agreed for nor the refund of the money paid, moved the present Complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs with prayer for directing the OPs to refund to the Complainant the money received by the OPs with interest @ 12% per annum as also to pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
After filing the Complaint Notices were duly served upon the OPs as is evident from the Order No. 4 dt. 3.3.2014 of this Commission.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that as the Ops have office at Salt Lake, Kolkata, so this Commission has territorial jurisdiction over the instant Complaint Case.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that the OPs not only failed to discharge within the stipulated period their contractual obligation arising out of the Agreement dt. 8.2.2009 in respect of handing over the possession as well as completion of execution and registration of the flat in question which is located at Silchar, Assam, but also failed to refund the money received by the OPs from the Complainant, and hence, committed gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the instant Complaint should be allowed with cost against the OPs as also the reliefs as prayed for be awarded.
None has appeared on behalf of the OPs even after service of Notices as mentioned at the outset. Therefore, the case is being proceeded ex parte against the OPs on the basis of the materials on records.
The Agreement dt. 18.2.2009, as available on records, demonstrates that the location of the flat in question was in Assam and that the Agreement in question was also executed with the OPs at their address in Assam. The aforesaid evidence on records conspicuously establishes that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction in respect of the instant Complaint as the 'cause of action' in the instant case actually occurred in Assam. Mere existence of the office at Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal cannot confer territorial jurisdiction in respect of the case on hand over this Commission when the Salt Lake office of the OPs is neither directly nor indirectly connected with the cause of action which arose in Assam. Otherwise, even if the cause of action arises in a particular state, then the Complainant would be eligible to file the Complaint in any state in India where the OPs have office, which will lead to absurd consequences and lead to Forum hunting. In this context, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in M/s. Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2010 (1) CPR 28 SC, wherein it was held, "If the contention of the Ld. 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".
In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to hereinbefore we are of the opinion that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction over the instant Complaint Case.
Accordingly, the instant Complaint is dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to move the appropriate Forum. No order as to costs.
In this view of the case we refrain from passing any opinion in respect of the case on hand. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER