National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Meera Chaudhary vs M/S. M-Tech Developers Ltd. on 6 March, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 10/08/2017 in Complaint No. 609/2017 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. MEERA CHAUDHARY W/O. SH S.M. CHAUDHARY R/O. H NO 1274 SECTOR -9A, GURUGRAM HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD. 144/2, ASHRAM MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI 110014 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Mr. S.M. Phogat, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 06 Mar 2018 ORDER
The case has been called out the second time. Still, no one appears for the Respondent.
Though, on the last date of hearing, the Respondent was represented by an Advocate, appearing for Mr. V.M. Bhardwaj, Advocate, but none of the Counsel has filed vakalatnama in his favour. Accordingly, I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Complainant.
Challenge in this Appeal, by the Complainant, is to the order dated 10.08.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 609 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that since the Complainant is a resident of Gurugram, Haryana; she must be having account in Gurugram; and she has also failed to produce copy of the cheques issued towards the cost of the flat, as well as the statement of her bank account, the Delhi State Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.
Having perused the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable.
It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of the Respondent/Opposite Party is in New Delhi; the allotment letter to the Complainant was issued from the Respondent's Office at New Delhi; and receipts, acknowledging deposit of the demand drafts towards the sale consideration, were issued in New Delhi.
In view of the said overwhelming documentary evidence on record, in the light of the plain language of Section 17(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there can hardly be any doubt that the Delhi State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and was, thus, not justified in dismissing it on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
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 in accordance with law.
The Complainant/her Counsel shall appear before the State Commission on 18.04.2018 for further proceedings.
The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT