National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Exact Developers And Promoters ... vs Rahul Jain & Anr. on 14 February, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1637 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 15/09/2016 in Complaint No. 479/2014 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. M/S. EXACT DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, E-42/3, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-1100020 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. RAHUL JAIN & ANR. R/O. 133/64, JUHI HAMIRPUR ROAD, KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH 2. M/S. VIPUL TECH SQUARE GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR-43, GURGAON, HARYANA-122002 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Appellant : DR. BIPIN K. DWIVEDI For the Respondent :
Dated : 14 Feb 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the interim impugned order dated 15.09.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in CC No. 479/2014, vide which, the said Commission dismissed an application filed by the appellant/OP builders, seeking rejection of the consumer complaint on the ground of jurisdiction only. The appellant/OP stated in the said application that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties as well as the terms laid down in the allotment letter, the courts at Gurgaon alone had the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the consumer complaint. The Delhi State Commission should, therefore, have dismissed the complaint on this ground only.
2. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant/OP stated that if the jurisdiction to deal with a matter was at more than one place, but it was laid down in the agreement between the parties that the jurisdiction was to be exercised at only one of these places, the consumer complaint could have been filed at that place only. The learned counsel stated that in the present case, the jurisdiction was at Delhi and Gurgaon both, but the agreement stipulated that only the courts at Gurgaon would take cognisance of the matter. The Delhi State Commission had, therefore, taken an erroneous view in rejecting their application for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Swastik Gases P. Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation" (2014 II AD (S.C.) 325), in which it was stated as follows:
"Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, we think that an inference may be drawn that parties intended to exclude all other courts. A clause like this is not hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act at all. Such clause is neither forbidden by law nor it is against the public policy. It does not offend Section 28 of the Contract Act in any manner."
4. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to another order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "New Moga Transport Company vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." (AIR 2004 SC 2154) in support of his arguments.
5. In so far as, the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same is governed by section 11(2) in the case of District Forum and section 17(2) of the Act in the case of State Commission. The appellant/OP stated that as per clause 62 of the buyers' agreement, duly signed by the parties, and as per clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, only the Gurgaon Courts had the jurisdiction to deal with any matter, concerning the transaction between the parties. It may be stated, however, that the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter has also to be seen. In the instant case, since the value of the property is more than Rs.20 lakh, the District Forum does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in accordance with section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The place Gurgaon is situated in the State of Haryana and the concerned State Commission is situated at Panchkula (Haryana). The mentioning of Gurgaon in the agreement between the parties, or in the terms of the allotment letter does not have any relevance in the present case, therefore. The case was to be filed either in the State Commission in Haryana or in the State Commission at Delhi, where the appellant/OP are situated, as per their particulars given in the memo of appeal itself. The judgments cited by the appellant/OP are, therefore, not applicable in the present case.
6. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Delhi State Commission and the said order is upheld. This first appeal is ordered to be dismissed and the State Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER