ESTATE OFFICER, H.U.D.A. vs INDIRA SHARAN

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 7th June 1995 passed by the District Forum, Patna in case No. 1004 in which the appellant here alongwith the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development. Authority (in short HUDA) was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complain, ant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. THE complainant applied to the opposite party No. 1 the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, Haryana for a plot of land along with earnest money of Rs. 22,826/-. THE complainant got an allotment letter dated 12.7.93 from the Estate Officer, HUDA opposite party No. 2, Gurgaon confirming the allotment of plot in Sector IX A and he was directed to pay Rs. 34,254/- more as allotment money within thirty days of the allotment letter. But as the complainant was undergoing treatment for heart desease at Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardeology, Patna and she could not arrange the allotment money. She wrote to the Estate Officer, FIUDA on 20.7.93 for extension of time for payment of that amount. However, no communication was received back from the Estate Officer, HUDA till 12.8.93. THE complainant on 20th of August, 1993 wrote to the Estate Officer to cancel the allotment and to refund Rs. 22,226/- the earnest money as she has been referred to AIMS, New Delhi for treatment of her heart ailment and she can not afford to deposit the sum required. On 25.8.93 however the complainant got a letter from the Estate Officer, HUDA granting extension of time for despiting that amount of allotment money. But since the complainant has to get her treatment in the AIMS at New Delhi she met the Estate Officer, HUDA for refund of that money. On 29.11.93 the complainant got letter No. 10263 dated 25.11.93 from the Estate Officer, HUDA informing her regarding cancellation of the allotment of the plot and forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by her. THE complainant thereafter filed case before the District Forum for refund of the earnest money with @ 24% interest thereon and compensation for the expenses incurred by her. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed written version controverting the claim of the complainant and challenging the jurisdiction'' of the District Forum, Patna to entertain this case.

During the pendency of the case before the District Forum the opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant that out of the aforesaid earnest money of Rs. 22,236/- a sum of Rs. 20000/- has been ordered to be refunded to,the complainant on purely compassionate grounds keeping in view her heart ailment. The District Forum taking into consideration this circumstances came to the finding that the opposite party has waived their objection to its jurisdiction and decided the case and directed the Opposite party-HUDA to return the entire earnest money along with interest @ 18% besides Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant and Rs. 3000/- as cost of litigation.

WE are of the opinion that the District Forum ought to have decided the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction first before proceeding with the hearing of the case on merit. It is apparent from the facts stated above that both the opposite parties are situated beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Patna. Admittedly the opposite party has no branch office at Patna. No part of cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Patna and therefore, the District Forum, Patna has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

THE instant case is squarely covered by the decision of the National Commission in the case of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others v. J.K. Khanna, II (1994) CPJ 90 (NC) Revision petition No. 548 of 93 decided on 11th of May, 1994. In a similar situation the National Commission has held that the District Forum, Muzaffarpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and adjudicate the complaint filed by the complaint before the Forum. Hence the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is hereby dismissed. The complainant however will be at liberty to move the proper District Forum or authority for redressal of his grievance if he so advised.

TAKING into consideration the consumer status of the complainant-respondent there is no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.