JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainants / petitioners booked residential flats in a project namely Mohali Hills, which opposite party No. 1 and 2, namely Emaar MGF Land Ltd. was to develop. The booking was made through opposite party No3, Life Time Consultants, who was a Moga based agent of Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Opposite party No.4 Mr. Edi Sidhu was the Sales Manager of namely Emaar MGF Land Ltd. at the relevant time. The grievance of the petitioners / complainants is that though the project was required to be completed by 2013, the developer had not even started the construction work despite having collected the booking amount of Rs.3.00 lacs each from them. Being aggrieved, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate complaints, seeking refund of the money paid by them. 2. The complaint was resisted by the developer on several grounds, including that the District Forum at Moga, where the consumer complaints were filed, did not have jurisdiction to hear the said complaints. 3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 07.8.2014, allowed the complaints and directed to the developer to refund the money, along with interest etc. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the developer namely Emaar MGF Land Ltd. approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 02.11.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the District Forum at Moga, solely on the ground that the Forum at Moga did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The petitioner / complainants however, were given liberty to file fresh complaints before the Consumer Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners / complainants are before this Commission by way of these revision petitions. 5. Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under: “A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, - The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, or 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 The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.
It would thus be seen that a complaint can be instituted in the District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action whole or partly arises, even if none of the opposite parties resides or carries on business within the said jurisdiction. 6. It is not in dispute that opposite party No.3 M/s. Life Line Consultants was an agent of the developer namely Emaar MGF Land Ltd. in respect of the project in which the units were booked by the complainants. In it reply filed before the District Forum, opposite party No.3 clearly stated that it was on the instructions of the developer that it had booked the properties and collected the documents, along with necessary drafts / cheques from the buyers and handed over the same to the developer. The application whereby the units were booked by the complainants, bears signature of the agent and the aforesaid documents has been executed at Moga. Therefore, the plea taken by the opposite party No.3 also stands substantiated from the documentary evidence produced before the District forum. Thus, not only the booking was made at Moga even the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- each from the complainants was collected at Moga. In fact, opposite party No.4, who at the relevant time was the Sales Manager of the developer, also stated in his reply filed before the District Forum that being the agent of opposite party No.1 and 2, opposite party No.3 had contacted the complainant for sale of residential plots in the project of the developer and thereafter, he was deputed by the developer to explain the project. Accordingly he had explained the project to the complainants. Obviously, the opposite party No.4 would have met the complainants and explained the project to them at Moga. 7. The term cause of action has not been defined either in the Consumer Protection Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it is generally understood to mean the bundle of facts which the party coming to the Court will have to prove in order to succeed in his case. The complainant, in order to succeed in the consumer complaints filed by them had to prove the booking of the flats and payment of the Earnest Money to the developer through its agent. Therefore, the place where the booking was made and the place where the payment was collected from the complainants constituted essential facts which the complainants had to prove in order to succeed in the consumer complaints filed by them. Since the aforesaid activities happened at Moga, it would be difficult to dispute that atleast part of the cause of action arose at Moga, within the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Moga. The state Commission, therefore, was not right in taking the view that the District Forum at Moga did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals filed by the opposite party namely Emaar MGF Land Ltd. are remanded back to the State Commission for deciding them on merits after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the concerned State Commission on 04.10.2016. The State Commission is directed to decide the appeals within three months of the parties appearing before it, in terms of this order. |
