National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rohit Srivastava vs Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 5 July, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1728 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 08/09/2016 in Complaint No. 362/2015 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. ROHIT SRIVASTAVA ROHIT SRIVASTAVA, FLAT 404, TOWER-C, HERITAGE ONE, SECTOR-62, GURGAON, HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD. & ANR. 208, SECOND FLOOR, SIKKA MANSION, LSC, SAVITA VIHAR, DELHI-110092 2. SHRI MUKESH AGARWAL MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. PARAMOUNT TOWERS PVT LTD.,H-123, SECTOR-63, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-210305 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Appellant : MOHD. FARIS For the Respondent : Mr.Sagar Saxena and Mr.Pramod Sharma, Advocates Dated : 05 Jul 2017 ORDER This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 8.9.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.362/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the short ground that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order, impugned in this Appeal, is extracted below :
"In response to court query as to why the present complaint was not filed in District Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar, counsel for complainant submitted that the same was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum. The reason being that complainant has claimed the possession and the same is liable to be valued at the price of flat, the same is Rs.43,00,000/- and above.
I put next query to the counsel that if the complaint was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar he could file the complaint in State Consumer Commission, Lucknow and why he has chosen to file the complaint in State Commission, Delhi. The counsel for complainant replied that this commission has territorial jurisdiction because the regd. Office of OP is in Savita Vihar, Delhi.
I am unable to appreciate the arguments of the counsel for the complainant. Even if two forums have territorial jurisdiction, the complainant must choose one of them finally. He cannot go on hunting for buying jurisdiction of commission one by one."
Hence, the present Appeal.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that the order cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No.1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In the light of the said provision, in our view, it was open to the Complainant to choose the Forum to file the Complaint, which on the second occasion he decided to file before the State Commission at Delhi.
Consequently, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint is restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits. The Appellant shall be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-. Costs shall be remitted directly to the Complainant within two weeks.
The parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.08.2017 for further proceedings in accordance with law.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER