Haryana

StateCommission

CC/64/2017

MONIKA GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL HOMES - Opp.Party(s)

MOHAN SHARMA

25 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

Complaint Case No.64 of 2017

Date of the Institution:07.02.2017

Date of Decision:25.05.2017

 

Mrs. Monika Garg aged 42 years wife of Sh.Sanjeev Garg, resident of apartment No.303, Tower 8, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                                             .….complainant

Versus

1.      BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director Regd., office Shop No.140, village Darua, Chandigarh-160002.

2.      Baldev Chand Bansal, Director BCL Homes Ltd., R/o House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula-134109.

3.      Gopal Bansal S/o Baldev Chand Bansal, BCL Homes Ltd., Kishanpura adjoining Sector-20, Panchkula, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali (Pb.)

4.      Rajeev Kumar, authorized representative, BCL Homes Ltd., R/o Flat No.2218, Pepsu Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                      .….Opposite parties

Present:-    Mr.Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.      Mrs. Monika Garg complainant booked a flat at Mohali and paid Rs.4,00,000/- for plan “40 lacs on 0% interest” to the OPs-BCL Homes Project “Apartment in Chinar Urban ville (CUV) Project in District Mohali. OP assured that the project shall be completed within one year otherwise paid amount will be refunded alongwith interest. She visited office of OP 15 times and every time she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the staff of the OP and never met the complainant for return of the payment. Feeling aggrieved against their conduct, she filed the present complaint for the refund of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.      From the bare perusal of the complaint alongwith documents annexed thereto, it transpires that his Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint as all the essential ingredients of the contract between the parties relate to District Mohali in Punjab. For example, the location of the property in dispute, the place of payment of the amount, the averments of the claimant regarding his repeated visits to the OPs office of business relate to District Mohali in Punjab and none of them within the Haryana State. The mere fact that the residence of one of the Directors happens to be in Panchkula, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on this Commission to entertain the complaint as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP), wherein it was held that:-

“Incidence of fire in the appellant’s godown at Ambala –Complaint claiming compensation from the respondent allowed by the State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh – National Commission set aside the said order accepting the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the State Commission, Union Territory had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint –Hence, the present appeal –Admittedly no cause of action arose at Chandigarh – Insurance policy taken at Ambala, fire broke out in the godown at Ambala, and the claim for compensation also made at Ambala –Cause of action arose in 1999 and the complaint regarding the same filed in 2000- Amendment to Section 17(2) not to apply as the amended Section came into force with effect from 15.3.2003 – Contention that the respondent-insurance company having a branch office at Chandigarh, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh under the amended Section 17(2) rejected as unacceptable –It would have led to absurd consequences of bench hunting, meaning thereby that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a complaint in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India –Cause of action having arisen at Ambala, the State Commission, Haryana alone to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Impugned order of the National Commission agreed with –Appeal dismissed.”

 

In para Nos.3 and 4 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

 

“3. ……………On appeal, the NCDRC allowed the appeal of the respondent herein on the ground that the Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC.”

“4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus, no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.”

 

In para No.9 and 10 of the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“9.     ……….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.

 

10. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

The above said judgment is fully applicable in the present case.

3.      We have heard the learned counsel for complainant at length, but no additional argument was forthcoming in support of the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission. Consequently, we decline to entertain the complaint and return the same to the complainant for presenting it before the appropriate Forum, as per law.

May 25th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.