National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajan Kapoor vs Estate Officer, Huda & Anr. on 4 November, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 21.01.2011 in First Appeal No. 1368 of 2006 of the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula) Rajan Kapoor s/o Budh Dev Kapoor ........ Petitioner 24-B, Daya Nand Nagar, Amritsar ( Now at H. No. 525, Sector 12-A, Panchkula) Vs. 1. Estate Officer Huda, Ambala 2. Chief Administrator ......... Respondents HUDA, Sector 6, Panchkula BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.S.K.NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri G.I.Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Advocate Dated : 04th November, 2011 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No.1368 of 2006, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act) in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the opposite party-HUDA against the order dated 27.04.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula, whereby the said District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the present petitioner alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties by including his name in the list of applicants for allotment of 6 Marlas plot and not for 14 Marlas plot in Ambala. The District Forum partly allowed the said complaint by granting the following relief to the petitioner complainant:
a. to allot 14 Marla plot in the same sector and at the same rate and terms and conditions on which the plots of similar status were allotted in the same draw.
b. To pay interest-compensation at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount deposited w.e.f.the date of deposit till offer of possession.
2. It would appear that in appeal, one of the objection / pleas raised on behalf of the appellant-HUDA was in regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of District Forum at Panchkula to entertain and try the complaint and pass the order appealed against by HUDA. The said objection found favour with the State Commission and the State Commission relying a Supreme Court decision in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 ( Supreme Court) (CP) held that the District Forum at Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint by observing as under:
Admittedly, the complainant had applied for allotment of 14 Marlas plot in Sector 34-P Ambala to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala City but he filed the instant complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula alleging deficiency in service jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint because cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Ambala where he had applied for allotment of plot and deficiency in service, if any as alleged by the complainant, can be at Ambala. The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to the Sonic Surgical case. In view of the facts mentioned above, the cause of action accrued to the complainant at Ambala and therefore, the complaint should have been filed at Ambala and not at Panchkula. District Consumer Forum, Panchula has not appreciated this aspect and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
However, in terms of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption / condonation of the time spent before the District Forum and the State Commission to seek remedy before the Forum / Court having competent jurisdiction, if so advised.
3. We have heard Shri G.I.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Advocate, learned counsel representing the respondent and have considered their submissions.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner complainant would assail the order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, material obtaining on record and the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra). The basis of the submission is that firstly, Head Office of HUDA is located at Panchkula and the Chief functionary of HUDA viz., Chief Administrator HUDA has also its office in Panchkula and, therefore, complainant was well within his right to file the complaint before the District Forum Panchkula. The second submission is that in the present case, part of the cause of action had accrued at Panchkula because when the complainant did not find his name in the list of successful allotees for 14 Marlas, he made representation to the Chief Administrator, HUDA and thereafter he was informed that his name existed in the list of allottees for 6 Marlas plot in Ambala which action he challenged before the District Forum. On the other hand, counsel representing the respondent-HUDA fully supported the order passed by the State Commission on the premise that no cause of action had arisen to the complainant within the territory of Panchkula and the complainant has abused the jurisdiction of the said Forum by filing the complaint there.
4. Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Panchkula, inasmuch as application for allotment was made by the complainant to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer. Even if one or two letters / representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Administrator HUDA, it would not make a difference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum. We are, therefore, of the view that order of the State Commission so far as it directed the complainant-petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party. However, in the given facts and circumstances and having come to the conclusion that Ambala District Forum had the requisite jurisdiction, the proper course of State Commission was to have directed the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing the same before the District Forum Ambala, having jurisdiction within a reasonable time frame.
5. That apart, we may also observe that once the State Commission was convinced with the plea of the appellant-HUDA in regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum, it should not have ventured to make observations in regard to the merit of the matter which impinges on the merit of the complaint because it could prejudice any of the parties and the concerned District Forum could be influenced by the same.
6. In the result, revision petition is hereby dismissed and order passed by the District Forum, Panchkula is hereby set aside.
The District Forum Panchkula shall return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the District Forum Ambala within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. The complaint after its return, if filed, before the District Forum, Ambala shall be entertained and decided afresh by the said District Forum in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, uninfluenced by the observations made and findings recorded by the District Forum Panchkula and the State Commission in their respective orders as expeditiously as it may be practicable.
7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.
Sd/ (R.C. JAIN, J) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K.NAIK) MEMBER Am/