State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parvinder Kaur Saigal vs Nitishri Infra. Ltd. on 27 October, 2022
FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 11.11.2013
Date of hearing: 01.09.2022
Date of Decision: 27.10.2022
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 1190/2013
IN THE MATTER OF
SMT. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL,
W/O MR. G. S SAIGAL
R/O 27, SIRI NAGAR COLONY,
ASHOK VIHAR ROAD, DELHI
(Through: A. K Singh & Co.)
...Appellant
VERSUS
NITI SHREE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
78-B, SECTOR D-2,
GROUP - II, DDA FLAT,
KONDALI GHAROLI,
MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE - III,
DELHI - 110096
ALSO AT:
B-111, SEC - 05,
NOIDA, U.P- 201301
(Through: Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate)
...Respondent
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 8
FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Forum record are:
"The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on being approached by and convinced by M/s. J.K. Properties, an authorized dealer of the respondent, the complainant booked a 175 sq.yds. plot @ Rs.6,505/- in Shourya City, Ghaziabad by making a payment of Rs.2,85,000/-vide Cheque No.989283 dated 26/11/2005 drawn on State Bank of India. The respondent acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque and issued a Receipt - cum -
Acknowledgement bearing Ref. No. NCRMR0102/1835/STPL/MR/02-12 dated 02/12/2005 to her. It is further submitted that the said project got frustrated due to alleged approval defect and change in Govt. Policy and in 2007 in lieu of the earlier plot the respondent offered her a Shop No.GF 69, in Shourya Puram Metropolitan, its new proposed project besides assured return of 11% p.a. on the investment made by her till the date possession is offered to her. The complainant registered herself for the said shop vide Registration Form No.023150 on 30/08/2007and the booking amount of the plot alongwith accumulated interest aggregating to Rs.3,72,500/- was adjusted towards the payment for the said shop vide Receipt No.00000782 dated 01/10/2007. Letter of Confirmation dated 01/10/2007 confirming the booking of the Shop No.GF-69 and acknowledging the receipt of consideration of Rs.3,72,500/-
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 8 FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022
was issued to her. The complainant further alleges to have deposited Rs.2,84,900/-towards the cost of the said shop vide Cheque No.778000 dated 19/10/2007 in compliance to the demand raised by the respondent and a Receipt No. 00000859 dated 20/10/2007 was issued to her. It is further submitted by the complainant that she has received the agreed return @11% p.a. upto September, 2010 and thereafter neither the said agreed returns were passed onto her nor the respondent delivered the possession of the said shop to her within two years as alleged to have been assured by it. Legal Notice dated 05/07/2011 sent by the complainant has since not been replied by the respondent. She has also raised allegations of breach of trust, cheating, misappropriation of public money including the money of the complainant. The complainant has prayed for the refund of the booking amount of Rs. 6,57,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from October, 2010 till the date of its realization, Rs.12,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony meted out by her and Rs.22,000/- as the cost of this litigation."
2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 23.09.2013, whereby it held as under:
"It is a well established principle of law that the jurisdiction is decided from the averments made in the complaint or the plaint as the case may be. In the present complaint the jurisdiction of this Forum is to be culled out from the averments contained in the complaint. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the court at Delhi will have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint as it is the specific case of the complainant that she was approached by M/s. J.K. Properties at her residence and lured by it to book a plot in Shourya City, Ghaziabad, a pre-launch project of the respondent and that the respondent has its Registered Office in Delhi. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has failed to file on record ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 8 FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022 any cogent evidence to show that she was approached by an agent of the respondent at her residence in Delhi for the booking of the said plot. Further, on an indepth perusal of the record, it is observed that the whole series of events which give rise to the cause of action have taken place at the offices of the respondent located at Noida. They are:
(i) The Receipt - cum - Acknowledgement dated 02/12/2005, copy of which is filed on record as Annexure to the complaint at Page 12, reflecting the deposit of the initial booking amount of Rs.2,85,000/- was issued by the Noida Office of the respondent;
(ii) The receipt for the transfer of Rs.3,72,500/-, copy of which is filed on record as Annexure to the complaint at Page 13, which includes the initial plot booking amount of Rs.2,85,000/-
and the interest accumulated thereon towards the registration of a shop in another proposed project of the respondent namely "Shourya Puram Metropolitan" bearing No.00000782 dated 01/10/2007 was issued by the Noida Office of the respondent;
(iii) The letter dated 30/08/2007 addressed to the Managing Director of the respondent company for the adjustment of plot payment and Receipt No.00000859 dated 20/10/2007 reflecting the payment of Rs.2,84,900/-, through Cheque No.778000 dated 19/10/2007 of SBI, being the part consideration for the shop so booked by her was also issued by the Noida Office of the respondent. Copy of the letter dated 30/08/2007 and the receipt dated 20/10/2007 are filed on record as Annexure to the complaint at Pages 16 and 14 respectively;
(iv) The duly filled Registration Form No.023150 of the said shop was submitted by the complainant at the Noida Office of the respondent, copy of the same is filed on record at Page 15;
(v) The Letter of Confirmation of booking of shop dt. 01/10/07 has been issued by the Noida Office of the respondent and the same is filed on record as Annexure to the present complaint at Page 18; &, ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 8 FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022
(vi) From the facts stated above, it is clear that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territory of the NCT of Delhi so as to confer the Consumer Court at Delhi with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. This has been ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that mere existence of the Registered Office at a particular place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court/Forum does not ipso facto confer jurisdiction on the Court or the Forum to entertain the case filed against the company. In the present case the entire series of transactions took place at Noida offices in Uttar Pradesh and no part of dealing was transacted within the territory of NCT of Delhi and it is only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in Delhi that the complainant has filed the present complaint using the address of the registered office of the respondent. It is significant to mention here that even the legal notice dated 05/07/2011 filed on record at Pages 19 to 22 as Annexure to the complaint was addressed to the Noida offices of the respondent by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant on her behalf at its Noida offices. As such the Consumer Forums in Delhi will have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. While arriving at the said decision we have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr AIR 2002 SC 126.
Taking into consideration the detailed discussion and observations made supra, the present complaint needs to be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper court or Forum having jurisdiction."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the registered office of the Respondent is situated in Delhi. To support this contention, the Appellant has relied on H. V Jaya Ram Vs. ICICI dated 15.12.1999 reported in 2000 (2) ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 8 FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022 SCC 202, Upender Kumar Joshi vs. Manik Lal Chatterjee & Ors. reported in 1982 (52) CC 177 (Patna) and Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. reported in 2011 (14) SCC 337.
4. The reply to the present appeal has been filed by the Respondent, wherein the counsel for the Respondent contended that the complaint was barred by limitation, Appellant is not consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the cause of action in the present case arose in Noida, U.P. He further submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said judgment and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties on 01.09.2022.
6. The question for consideration before us is whether the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint of the Appellant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
7. We deem it appropriate to refer to Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as under:
"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 8 FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022 either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
8. Analysis of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 leads us to the conclusion that clause 17(2) of the Act provides the extent of territorial jurisdiction, wherein it has been provided that the state commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain cases where opposite party at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or the cause of action arose.
9. We also deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Rohit Srivastava v.
Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1198, wherein it has been held as under:
"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."
10. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is clear that registered office of the Respondent is at 78-B, Sector D-2, Group- II, DDA Flat, Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase - II, Delhi - 110096. Relying on the above settled law, since the registered office of the Respondent ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 8 FA/1190/2013 MRS. PARVINDER KAUR SAIGAL VS. NITI SHRI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. DOD.: 27.10.2022 falls within the territory of Delhi, the District Forum (East) had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the District Forum was wrong in dismissing the complaint of the Appellant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2013 passed by District Commission in CC No. 760/2011 is set aside with no order as to costs.
12. In addition to the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the Ld. District Commission (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi 110092 for deciding the same on merit within six months from the date of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 25.11.2022.
13. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
27.10.2022 ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 8