State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Meera Chaudhary vs M/S M-Tech Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. on 10 August, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 26.07.17 Date of Decision: 10.08.17 Complaint No. 609/2017 In the matter of: Ms. Meera Chaudhary w/o Shri S.M.Chaudhary Both residents of H.No. 1274, Sector 9A, Gurugram, Haryana. ....Complainant VERSUS M/s M.Tech Developers Ltd., ANS House, 144/2, Ashram Mathura Road, New Delhi-110014. ....Opposite Party CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member
1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) This complaint is being disposed of at the stage of admission. According to complainant he booked flat No.301, Tower D in Project "Camellia Garden" situated at Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan for Rs. 18,00,000/- vide allotment letter dated 01.05.08. She paid Rs. 3,75,000/- vide two receipts dated 29.04.08. Her husband visited the site and find out progress of the project to utter surprise and shock. OP has not started construction work till date. OP committed fraud upon her misappropriated funds paid by the complainant. Notice dated 13.02.17 has no effect. Hence this complaint for refunding the amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of amount to the date of refund. The refund of Rs. 3,75,000/- and the total comes to Rs. 9,88,125/-. She also prayed for compensation of of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
2. The project is situated in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The complainant has not filed any builder buyer agreement to show where the same was executed. During arguments of admission the counsel for the complainant submitted that no builder buyer agreement has been executed. There is no iota of allegation regarding said effect in the complaint.
3. Complainant has also not filed any document to show how the payment was made. Receipt shows it was through cheque drawn on bank of Maharashtra but which branch is not known.
4. The complainant is resident of Gurugram, Haryana. She must be having account in Gurugram, Haryana. That is why she has not produced copy of cheque and statement of account o f her bank.
5. The counsel for complainant emphasized that Registered Office of the OP is situated in Delhi and so this Commission has got jurisdiction.
Location of office must be coupled with cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction. This was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2009) CPJ 40. It was held that Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
If branch office in clause 17 (2) (b) has to be lead alongwith cause of action, the same interpretation should apply to Section 17 (1) (b) so as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." alongwith cause of action.
Reference with advantage may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No, 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor vs. Estate Officer, HUDA decided on 04.11.11. In that case District Forum, Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that district forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction. The decision of State Commission was based on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soni Surgical Supra. In para 3 of the decision of National Commission it has been observed that merely because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula, did not confer jurisdiction on district forum, Panchkula, cause of action had arisen in Ambala. Consequently the proper forum was district forum, Ambala, Order of the State Commission directing return of the complaint for being presented to district forum, Ambala was maintained by the National Commission.
Moreover in Revision petition No. 2780 of 2011 titled as Pramod Kumar Malik vs. HUDA decided by National Commission on 08.11.12, in para 12 it has been held that complainant applied for plot in Gurgaon but filed the complaint at Faridabad. In para 10 it was held that facts of the case are fully as attracted to Sonic Surgical case. Merely because there is office of HUDA at Faridabad does not give any right to the complainant to file complaint at Faridabad and thus complaint was not entertainable before district forum in Faridabad.
In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs. Sameer Saxena Volume 1 (2013) CPJ 31 National Commission held that since floors were constructed in Gurgoan it clearly showed that petitioner, builder were working for gain at Gurgaon only.
In appeal No. FA 12/183 titled as Bhaiya Ram Sahu vs. Vipin Jain decided on 18.10.12 State Commission, Chattisgarh held that location of registered office is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on district forum at that place. In para 10 it has been held that on this question law has been clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court and now it is settled that clauses of section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act are required to be read together. There should not be a branch office or a working place or residence of the OP but cause of action wholly or in part within jurisdiction of that district forum must have also arisen. So requirement for the purpose of jurisdiction, is to fulfill that condition i.e. OP must have residence or working place or branch office of OP. Then some part of cause of action must have arisen within the jurisdiction of that district forum and then only consumer complaint can be filed.
6. Moreover in Revision petition No. 2780 of 2011 titled as Pramod Kumar Malik vs. HUDA decided by National Commission on 08.11.12, in para 12 it has been held that complainant applied for plot in Gurgaon but filed the complaint at Faridabad. In para 10 it was held that facts of the case are fully attracted to Sonic Surgical case. Merely because there is office of HUDA at Faridabad does not give any right to the complainant to file complaint at Faridabad and thus complaint was not entertainable before district forum in Faridabad.
7. The complaint is returned for presentation in State Commission, Haryana.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)