Delhi

StateCommission

CC/877/2017

RAVI RAJ CHAWLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAMIR SAGAR

30 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 30.5.2 017

Date of Decision : 31.05.2017

Complaint  No. 877/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Ravi Raj Chawla

S/o Late Shri J.S.Chawla

R/o 210-R, New Colony

Gurgaon-122001.                                                                            …….Complainant

 

                                                                        Versus

 

1. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Having its registered office at:

102, Antriksh Bhawan

22 Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at:

 

Universal Buildwell Pvt. Limited

8^th Floor, Universal Trade Tower

Sector 49, Gurgaon Sohna Road

Gurgaon-122 018, Haryana

 

2. Shiv Ganesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Having its registered office at:

102, Antriksh Bhawan

22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001.                                                             ……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 Abhishek Pratap.

PER  :  HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

                Shri Ravi Raj Chawla resident of R/o 210-R, New Colony, Gurgaon, has filed a complaint before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act against Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency on their part in not having handed over possession of the apartment as promised in the agreement.  As per agreement the possession of the flat was to be handed over ny March 2015,

            The facts of the case are these.

            The complainant responding to an advertisement issued by the Opposite Party regarding  development and construction of its residential project namely Universal Aura in Village Sikandarpur, Sector 82, Gurgaon, Haryana, had booked a residential flat of 3 BHK (1587 sq. ft.) @ Rs.3065/- per sq. ft. vide his aplication No. 117 by paying booking amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-.  The agreement was executed on 20^th Sept., 2011.  As per the agreement the possession was to be handed over by March 2015.The total  consideration for the purpse as per agreement was Rs. 63,12,565/-.  The complainant has stated that he had made payment after procuring loan from HDFC.  He also alleged that Opposite Party failed to construct the flat even after giving grace period of 180 days, even after receipt of an agreed amount of Rs.58,27,886/-.

            Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party but all his efforts done in this behalf proved an exercise in futility.

            Having regard to this the complainant has filed this complaint with the following prayer:-

1. Declare that the Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 20.09.2011 stands terminated and is no longer binding upon the complainant due to the failure of the Opposite Party No. 1 to deliver to the complainant the promised apartment alongwith the promised amenities of the project by March 2015 as stipulated in the agreement.
2. Direct the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs. 58,27,886/-(Rupees Fifty Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eight Six only) towards the cost of the apartment already paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No. 1 along with pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum compounded on the said sum till the date of actually realization of the payment and;
3. Pass appropriate orders holding that the clauses pertaining t interest payable by the complainant to the Opposite Party in the Flat Buyers agreement stipulated payment of interest @ 24% per annum compounded quarterly for delayed payments is unfair, excessive and without partiy to the corresponding clauses for payment of interest/compensation by the Opposite Party to the complainant;
4. Grant a sum of Rs. Five lakhs to the complainant payale by the Opposite Party on account of agony, inconvenience, mental harassment and torture due to the illegal and actions followed by the Opposite Party, malpractices being indulged into by it and for deficiency in service in part of the Opposite Party;
5. Grant a sum of Rs. Three Lakhs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party towards costs and litigation charges incurred by the complainant for the matter;
6. Any other order which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

In the first instance we note that the agreement having been executed at Gurgaon, this Commission does not have any territorial jurisdiction.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant states that the head office of the Opposite Party being at Delhi this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to her this case.  We cannot subscribe to this new case because mere fact that Opposite Party has their head office at Delhi does not attract the territorial jurisdiction.

            In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.10.2009 the following observations  were made:

            “Ld 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 Ld. Counsel for the appellant.  In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to th amended Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act, which does not lad to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cuse of acstion 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 consequencs 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).

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

In Rajan Kapoor versus Estate Officer and another Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 4.11.2011, the following observations were made:

            “Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jursidiction of the District Foum of Panchkula, in as much as aplication for allotment was made by the complaint to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer.  Even if one or two letters/representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Admiistratr HUDA, it would not make a diference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cuase of action had occurred within the jursidiction of Panchkula District Forum. We are, therefire, of the view that order of the State Commission s fr as it directed the complinant petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party.”

            Keeping in view the verdict of the Apex Court we cannot accept the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and hold that this Commission does not enjoy the territorial jurisdiction to hear this case.

            We have also examined the prayer made .  The complainant has prayed for refund of amount of Rs. 58,27,886/- alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum compounded on the said sum till the date of actual realisation of the payment.  We have given a careful consideration to the prayer made.  We note that total amount claimed as referred to above would exceed Rs. One crore and keeping in view the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission cannnot try and hear the case where value of goods or service and compensation if any claimed, exceeds Rs. One Crore.  In the given case since the value exceeds Rs. One Crore we cannot hear this case.  Issue regarding modus to be followed for computation of the pecuniary jurisdiction has been settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Shri Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. dated 7^th Oct., 2016.  It has been held that total amount, the amount claimed and the interest has to be computed  for arriving at a decision whether State Commission enjoys pecuniary jurisdiction or not.  In the given case we are satisfied that Commission does not enjoy the pecuniary jursidiction relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCRDC(supra) and on this account also this complaint is not maintainable.

           

Having regard to this that this Commission enjoys neither the territorial nor pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and try this case and accordingly the complaint is returned to the complainant to file it at an appropriate forum having jursidiction to hear this case.

            We order accordingly.

            Copy of this order be sent to both the parties  free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

            File be consigned to records.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                        (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)