STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

^{Sh. Keshav Datt Sreedhar S/o late Sh. Brahm Datt, aged 54 years, resident of H.No.1105, Sector -2, Panchkula.}

 ……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

^{1]   M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited having its registered office at ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized representative.}

^{2]   M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited having its branch office at SCO No.120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its authorized representative.}

^{…Respondents/Opposite Parties.}

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

Argued by:

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

^2.                 

^{3.                It was further stated that against the total sale consideration in respect of the allotted unit, the Opposite Parties received an amount of Rs.54,67,139/- and the complainant was not in default of any amount payable by him to them. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties admitted in their reply dated 12.9.2012 that the Complex was at an advanced stage of construction and the Opposite parties had initiated work with regard to sewage treatment plant, rain water harvesting system, water work etc. and they also admitted the factum qua the delay in handing over possession of the allotted unit.. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were liable to pay an amount of Rs.12,17,900/- as compensation for delay in handing over possession of the allotted unit as on 31.01.2013. It was further stated that failure to handover the actual physical possession of the unit, in question, and payment of compensation for delay in handing over the same, by the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed directing the Opposite Parties, to pay Rs.12,17,900/- as compensation @Rs.50/- per sq. feet per month w.e.f 01.07.2011 till 31.01.2013; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.}

^4.                

^5.                 

^6.                 

^7.                

^8.                

^9.                

^10.              

^11.              

^12.              

^{13.              Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC)}, the Apex Court held as under;

 ^“4.         

^{XXX                           8.} 

^{14.              , clearly goes to reveal that the policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala; the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Commission, at Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above.} 

^{15.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is disposed of, in the manner, that the complaint, in original, is ordered to be returned to the appellant/complainant, alongwith the documents, attached therewith, after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate Consumer Forum/Commission having the requisite territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).}

^16.              

^17.              

^Pronounced.

^{March 21, 2014.}

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.61 of 2014)

Argued by:

Dated the 21^st

ORDER

Ad