Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/568/2017

Sh. S.P. Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unitech Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/568/2017
Date of Institution	:	09/08/2017
Date of Decision	:	15/03/2018

 

1.     Sh. S.P. Agrawal s/o late Sh. J.P. Agrawal, flat No.276, 2^nd Floor, Trishla Home, Peer Muchalla, P.O. Dhakoli, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Panjab (earlier resident of House No.1824, Sector 7C, Chandigarh).

2.     Mr. Amit Agarwal s/o Sh. S.P. Agrawal, Flat No.276, 2^nd Floor, Trishla Home, Peer Muchalla, P.O. Dhakoli, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Unitech Limited, Regd. Office : 6, Community, Saket, New Delhi through its MD/authorised representative/Manager.

2.     M/s Unitech Limited, SCO No.189-190-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its authorised Manager/ Authorised representative.

3.     M/s Unitech Limited, Fixed Deposit Division, Unitech House, L Block, South City-1, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana through its Manager.

4.     M/s Unitech Limited, Unitech Commercial Tower-2, near Greenwood City, Sector 45, Gurgaon-122001 (Hry.) through its Manager.

5.     M/s Security Investments Ltd., Cabin No.1, First Floor, SCO 179-180, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for complainants.
	:	Smt. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for OPs 1 to 4.
	:	OP-5 ex-parte.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that after coming to know about the fixed deposit scheme of the OPs and believing them, complainant No.1 got an FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- made for a period of three years  and the same was subsequently got renewed with date of maturity as 9.7.2016. Complainant No.1 received due interest on the said FDR upto 31.3.2015.  However, thereafter neither the interest due w.e.f. 1.4.2015 nor the maturity amount was received. 

                The complainant also got issued another FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of two years which was subsequently renewed with date of maturity as 21.7.2014. As per the complainant, he has received the due interest on the same upto maturity date, but, thereafter neither any interest nor the maturity amount was received. As per the complainant, despite repeated requests, the OPs failed to pay the amounts due in respect of both the FDRs.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.

2.         OPs 1 to 4 in their written statement have averred that the company is facing immense financial crunch due to global recession in the real estate sector and could not make the payment of interest due.  Moreover, the OPs had approached the Company Law Board for re-scheduling the payments and the offer was made by the company in order to adjust the amount due for payment to the complainants which show the bonafide of the OP Company despite severe cash crunch.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-5 did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 28.9.2017, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainants denying all the averments in the written reply of OPs 1 to 4.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         In view of the specific objection taken by the OPs, we would first like to see if this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
8.         The Counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant has invested the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs No.1 to 4 through OP No.5 (M/s Security Investments Ltd.) and as such this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. However, OP No.3 is only a facilitator who acted as a facilitator only by transmitting the application, if any, for the fixed deposit and the cheque, if any, for fixed deposit to M/s Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi and that too on the request of the complainant.   Here we place reliance upon the judgment of Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd., IV (2003) CPJ 26 (NC), in which it was held as under:

“7.    Before we go into the question of merits of the case, we would discuss the question of jurisdiction. It is now settled law that while the Consumer Forum has the trappings of a Civil Court but we are not Civil Courts. For ‘substantive’ purpose, Consumer Protection Act is a wholesome and in itself a complete enactment. Section 11 of this Act reads as follows:

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed Rupees twenty lakhs].

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain; or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

8.        While one may concede that Section 20 of C.P.C. and Section 11 of C.P.A., 1986 had a common reading - but this was before the amendment made in the Act in June, 1983. By an amendment to the C.P.A., 1986 in June, 1983, words “carries on business or has a branch office or” have been added. In our view legislative intent is clear. The amendment is part of the statute and has not been challenged. Consumer Forums cannot go beyond or behind the provisions of the Act. In our view, it is not in dispute that the respondent neither has any business nor any branch office in Chandigarh. The effort by the petitioner to bring in Punjab and Sind Bank as an Agent of the respondent with a view to fall within Section 11(2)(c), is too naive to be accepted and dealt in by us. Bank is only a facilitator to accept the money at the time of floating of debentures and encash cheques issued by the respondent. This is a limited service being rendered by them for all aspiring investors - by no stretch of imagination can they be called the Agents of the respondent. We see no action wholly or the part taking place in Chandigarh - Debentures were issued from Bombay. Two instalments as interest on Debentures were issued from Bombay payable at Chandigarh; Debentures were to be redeemed from Bombay, no action whatsoever could be said to be performed at Chandigarh. We have seen the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. SEBI & Ors. After going through it we do not find that the present case has anything common with the facts and results of that case as it dealt with situation/cases dealing with injunction. However relying upon the Halsbury’s Laws of England the Supreme Court goes on to state that, ‘As per as Indian is concerned, the residences of the Company is where the registered office is located’. Normally cases should be filed only where the registered office of the Company is situated. The point at issue was more specifically dealt in the context of Companies Act by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Gupta v. Hira Lal, wherein it was held that the cause of action would arise at the place where registered office of the Company is situated. This view was confirmed/reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  H.V. Jaya Ram v. ICICI & Ors.,1999 (7) Scale 481. National Commission in the case of GDA v. Smt. Sunita Garg (supra), had held that ‘the very fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat (in Ghaziabad) was remitted through the Branch of Vijaya Bank at Chandigarh will not entitle the complainant to contend that any part of the cause of action had arisen in Chandigarh. (emphasis supplied). On the point of jurisdiction another point made by the petitioner is that Consumer Protection Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and the poor small investor could not be expected to run to several places in this case to Bombay for recovery of less than Rs. 2,000/-. It also could not be the case of the petitioner that the respondents and similarly placed companies could be facing litigation in thousands of Courts spread over the country. We have also the Hon’ble Supreme Court warning us of the pit falls when it observed in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. SEBI & Ors.

“There is an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism which the Fora seem reality to oblige. We think such a tendency should be curbed....”

9.     In our view this appears to be the case at the District Forum level. We wish to reiterate that it is admittedly a beneficial legislation, but Forum shall not go out of the boundaries of law provided under the Act to satisfy the desires of anyone. Hence we see no merits in the issue - Consumer Forum at Chandigarh clearly had no jurisdiction under the law to entertain the complaint. The order of the State Commission is as per settled law on the subject.”

9.         Our view is further bolstered from the order dated 20.05.2015 passed in an identical case by our own Hon’ble State Commission C.C. No.92 of 2015 –Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. and others, the relevant paras of the said order reads as under:-

“5.            No doubt, the complainant averred that the FDRs were surrendered in the office of Opposite Party No.3 at Chandigarh for obtaining the maturity amount and the same were duly stamped by the said office at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the FDRs were surrendered to Opposite Party No.3, at Chandigarh, did not give rise to any cause of action at Chandigarh. Opposite Party No.3 was only to send the FDRs to the Registered Office at Unitech Limited at New Delhi, for payment of the maturity value. Opposite Party No.3 was only to act as a facilitator. The amount for issuance of the FDRs was sent by the complainant to the Registered Office of Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi. As stated above, the FDRs were also issued by the Registered Office of Unitech Limited, New Delhi. The maturity value of the FDRs was to be paid by the Registered Office (issuing office) of Unitech Limited, New Delhi.

“9.    …………….It is, therefore, held that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint and, as such, the same (complaint) is liable to be returned to the complainant, for presenting the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).

10.           For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, in original, alongwith the documents, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, against valid receipt,  after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint)”.

                Even the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission has been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No.509/2015 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. and others, decided on 11.01.2016. Besides this, the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that any cause of action has accrued to him at Chandigarh. A perusal of the FDRs (Annexure C-1 & C-2) shows that the same were issued by M/s Unitech Ltd., having its Regd. Office E, Community Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017. Admittedly, the complainant had surrendered the FDR in question to the Office of OP No.3 at New Delhi (Annexure C-3). There is no documentary evidence on record to presume that any transaction ever took place between the complainant and OP No.2.  It seems that the complainant impleaded OP No.2, in order to bring the dispute within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Mere existence of the Branch/Regional Office of the OP-Company at Chandigarh does not confer jurisdiction upon this Forum to entertain and decide the present complaint. Here we are also strengthened by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) and the operative part of the same reads as under :-

 “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.

                XXX                         XXX                     XXX

8.     Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended 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 [vide G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].”

                The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. Thus, no cause of action, whatsoever, could be said to have arisen to the complainant, within the territorial limits of Chandigarh.

10.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, without touching the merits of the present complaint, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty, to approach the appropriate Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/03/2018	[ Suresh Kumar Sardana ]	[ Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”