Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1059/2017

RANJIT KAUR & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S UNITECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARJUN HARKAULI

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 21.07.2017

Date of Decision :01.08.2017

Complaint No.1059/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

1. Ms. Ranjit Kaur,

W/o. Shri Rishipal Singh.

 

2. Shri Rishipal Singh,

R/o. 2346 Sector-28,

Faridabad-121008 Haryana                                                    ……Complainants

                                                                        Versus

 

M/s.  Unitech Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director

 

Registered office at:

6, Community Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 

Marketing Office at:

P-7, Sector 18, Noida-201301.                                                                 ….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

Present:  Shri  Arjun Harkauli, counsel for complainant.

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

          Shri Ranjit Kaur and anr. have filed a complaint before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against M/s. Unitech Ltd., hereinafter referred to as complainant and OPs respectively, alleging deficiency in service, praying for the relief as under:-

1. Pass an order in favour of the complainants and against the respondent declaring that the respondent are guilty of unfair trade practice, misrepresentation and for deficiency of service for not delivering the apartment unit within the time stipulated in the allotment letter dated 23.09.2005;
2. Direct  the respondent to pay/ compensate for the loss / damage cause to the complainant in terms of paragraphs 25 and 26  of the complaint with interest till the actual date of payment;
3. Direct the respondent to refund the deposited amount of Rs.35,10,325/- to the complainants along with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of actual payment of installments till the date of realization;
4. Pass an order directing the respondent to pay penalty @Rs.5/- per sq ft per month on the as per area of the apartment as per clause 4.c.(ii) from 31.03.2008 till date of actual payment;
5. Pass an order in favour of the complainant s and against the respondent directing the respondent to pay Rs.1 lacs towards litigation costs to the complainants;
6. Pass an order directing the respondent to pay the complainants a sum of Rs.10 lacs (Rupees twenty five lacs only) as compensation for mental harassment and agony caused to complainants and his family because for the respondent.
7. Pass such further order(s) in favour of the complainants and against  the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

          Facts of the case are these.

          The complainant  booked an apartment in the project of the OP namely “UNITECH CASCADES” in plot no.8, Sector Pi-II, (Alistonia Estate) Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and booking amount of Rs.3 lacs was paid. Allotment letter was issued, allotting a flat bearing no.0803, 8^th Floor, Type-II for a total consideration of  Rs.26,30,480/- from 08.09.2002 to 29.12.2007. The complainant had paid the full amount on in various installments. Possession of the flat was to be handed over by 31.03.08. The construction was not complete by that time. The complainant had addressed a letter on 15.09.2008 to the OP inquiring about the completion of the project and about delivery of possession of the flat. Several requests were made to the OP to hand over the physical possession of the flat but these letters/ call evoked in response. Finally on 22.05.2016 a legal notice was issued but even that evoked no responds. Being frustrated the complainant have filed this complaint on 12.06.2017 praying for the relief  referred to above.

          The matter came up before us for admission hearing on 21.07.2017 when Mr. Arjun Harkauli counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced his arguments for admission of the complaint. Since we had some doubt about  the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, the Ld. Counsel was requested to clarify the point as to how this commission enjoys the territorial jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the case, project being at Greater Noida. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant advanced only one arguments for the purpose, stating that the head office of the OP is in Delhi.

          We are unable to accept for the reason that the territorial jurisdiction is determined from the place cause of action arose, keeping in view the provision of Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Soni Surgical Vs.  National  Insurance Company decided by the Hon’ble Supreme  Court on 20.10.09 in Civil appeal no.1560/2004 ruling that mere stationing of the office of the OP at Delhi would not be a sufficient ground for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

          We sought a clarification from the Ld. Counsel whether any transaction is this behalf was done in Delhi but nothing came forward.

          For all these reasons we hold that this Commission does not enjoy the territorial jurisdiction to hear and dispose of this case and accordingly order returning of the complaint to file it before a Fora enjoying the jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost, as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 and Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005. .

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)