G.D.A. vs RAVINDER KUMAR

THIS appeal arises out of an order of the District Forum No. II, dated 9.1.1997, passed in Complaint Case No. 864/95, entitled Shri Ravinder Kumar v. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority.

THE brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant had advertised in various newspapers regarding allotment of Category ''F'' plots in Vaishali, Ghaziabad, and had invited applications in respect thereof. THE brochures alongwith the application forms of the said Scheme were made available at the branches of Banks indicated in the said advertisement. THE respondent, in response to the said advertisement, applied for a plot in the abovesaid Scheme and deposited Rs. 1,010/- on 19.8.1985 as registration amount alongwith the duly filled application form with Vijaya Bank, New Delhi. THE respondent, vide letter dated 20.9.1986, was informed that he had been successful for allocation of a plot and was required to deposit the first instalment of Rs. 1,000/- by 30.10.1986, which the respondent deposited in time. However, vide letter dated 2.1.1989, the appellant informed the respondent that the Scheme had been revised due to unavoidable circumstances, and as such required the respondent to make payments as per the revised schedule, and since the area to be allotted was increased, the respondent was also required to make enhanced payment in respect of the same. Vide letter dated 30.4.1991, the respondent was informed that the plot in question was ready to be handed over physically to the respondent and as such he was required to make up-to-date payment of the price of the plot and was asked to take possession of the plot latest by 30.5.1991, after completing all the necessary formalities and making balance payments. THE appellant issued possession letter dated 27.5.1991 to the respondent calling upon him to obtain possession from the Site Engineer at Vaishali, Ghaziabad, on or before 20.6.1991. It is the case of the respondent that despite having made the entire payment he has not been given the possession of the plot in question, despite numerous personal visits and written notices. On the contrary, the appellant demanded a further sum of Rs. 1,978/- from the respondent. Eventually, the respondent filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), before the District Forum, Delhi, praying for directions to the appellant not to cancel the allotment of the plot in question and to hand over the possession of the plot No. B.III/298, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. THE respondent in his complaint also prayed for interest on the money deposited by him with the appellant and also claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Before the District Forum, the appellant contested the said complaint filed by the respondent and, in its written statements, took a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the complaint. On merits, it was stated that the delay in carrying out the development of the Scheme and escalation of development charges had resulted on account of a Writ Petition No. No. 7712/88, filed by Ramprasth Builders, before the Hon''ble High Court, Allahabad. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant in the written statement filed before the District Forum that the respondent/complainant had himself failed to take possession of the plot in question in accordance with the possession letter issued to him in the year 1991 and that the respondent/complainant had also failed to pay Rs. 1,978/- demanded by the appellant.

The learned District Forum decided the question of jurisdiction, holding that the District Forum, Delhi, had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent, as the respondent/complainant had paid the registration amount and submitted the application form to the Vijaya Bank at New Delhi and as such a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Forum, due to which it was entitled to entertain the complaint of the respondent. On merits also it was held that there was ''deficiency in service'' on the part of the appellant in delaying the possession of the plot in question and as such directed the appellant to deliver possession of the plot in question without demanding any further amount, and also to pay interest on Rs. 25,474/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from 1.6.1991 to the date of delivery of possession of the plot in question. The District Forum further imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before us. We have heard the arguments addressed by Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshta, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and that of the respondent, who had appeared in person. We have also gone through the documents/material placed on record. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the learned District Forum has erred in holding that the Delhi Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent before it. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the National Commission in case Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipan Kumar Kohli, I (1995) CPJ 235 (NC), wherein the National Commission has held : "Under Clause (c) of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is one of the three alternative grounds for conferring territorial jurisdiction, the complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum, within the local limits in whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It is established on record that the complainant deposited in cash on 18th October, 1984, a sum of Rs. 2,889/- with the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi, on account of earnest money with the Application No. 003430 on HUDA Account for HUDA Estate, Faridabad. The applications were to be made and to reach the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad directly or through the branches of the authorised Banks (including Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi) latest by 19th October, 1984. The mere fact that the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi, received the earnest money of Rs. 2,889/- in cash from the complainant and remitted to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, does not mean that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Receipt of the payment by Estate Officer, Faridabad, and its non-refund with interest would be a part of cause of action. Supposing the complainant had deposited the money in a Bank and obtained a Bank Draft for the amount of earnest money from a branch of any Bank from anywhere in India but payable to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and had forwarded it alongwith the application to Estate Officer, Faridabad, no part of cause of action could be said to rise at the place from where the bank draft was obtained. The Bank acted only as an agent of the complainant in issuing the Bank draft. In this case, instead of a Bank draft, the amount was paid in cash and received by the Indian Bank, New Delhi, and remitted to the Estate Officer, HUDA, at Faridabad. It was a facility which was provided but the payment of the earnest money had to be remitted to the Estate Officer, Faridabad, either directly by the applicant or through the authorised Banks. Therefore, no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi."

(Emphasis supplied)

IN view of the above decision of the National Commission as well as the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 279/97 entitled G.D.A. v. Sangeeta Gupta, and Appeal No. 278/97 entitled G.D.A. v. P.K. Gupta, and two cross-appeals decided by a common order dated 18.7.1998, wherein the facts are similar to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the Delhi District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the same should have been filed before the District Forum, Ghaziabad (U.P.). The respondent has contended that he had not only deposited the initial registration amount as well as the application form at the New Delhi Branch of Vijaya Bank, but had also deposited the first instalment of Rs. 1,000/- in the same Bank at New Delhi. The mere fact of having also deposited one instalment with the New Delhi Branch of the Bank, besides the registration amount would not alter the position because even while receiving the first instalment, the Bank had only acted as an agent of the appellant through whom the payment so made would be remitted to the G.D.A. at Ghaziabad. It is not denied that G.D.A. has no branch office anywhere in Delhi. Therefore, it cannot be held that a part of cause of action arose at Delhi. Further, the position regarding jurisdiction of Delhi Forum in similar circumstances has already been settled by the National Commission and this Commission in the decisions mentioned above, as well as another decision of the National Commission in the case of G.D.A. v. Smt. Sunita Garg, Revision Petition No. 163/91, decided on 18.3.1992, and relied upon by this Commission in the case of G.D.A. v. Sushil Kumar Saini, Appeal No. A-99/96, decided on 6.8.1998. The law, therefore, is well-settled on the point that merely because the registration amount and application form are deposited at a Branch of a Bank in Delhi, as prescribed by the G.D.A. would not tantamount to a part of cause of action having arisen at Delhi, and as such the Delhi Forum would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed in this regard. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal of the appellant succeeds and in consequence thereof, the impugned order of the learned District Forum is set aside. There is, however, no order as to costs. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Appeal allowed.