Girish Ahuja vs M/S. Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Delhi dated 15.5.2017 resulting in dismissal of the appeal preferred by the

petitioner on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint against the respondent/opposite

party alleging that on coming across the advertisement regarding launch of township (Panchsheel Park) in Jaipur, Rajasthan the petitioner applied for

booking of a plot. He was allotted a 350 sq. yard plot in the said project for total consideration of Rs.7,87,500/-. Against the said allotment the

petitioner has made payment to the extent of Rs.3,23,750/-.

It is stated that all the documents pertaining to the booking of plot and allotment including the deposit registration form was executed in Delhi.

According to the complainant despite having received 40% of the total sale consideration the respondent/opposite party has failed to undertake any

development work in the project. The complainant therefore sought to opt out of the project and ask for the refund of the money paid by him with

interest but in vein. Being aggrieved the petitioner raised a consumer dispute.

Learned District Forum vide its order dated 30.1.2017 took the view that the dispute raised by the petitioner was not within the territorial jurisdiction

of the Consumer Forum at Delhi as the subject plot was located at Jaipur and also that no cause of action or any part of it had arisen at Delhi.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission, Delhi vide

impugned order relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Soni Surgical vs. NIC, IV (2009) CPJ 40 concurred with the

finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint on the ground of territorial

jurisdiction has been passed in utter disregard of Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Expanding on the argument learned counsel for

the petitioner/complainant has drawn my attention to deposit registration form (Annexure-E) and submitted that the perusal of the aforesaid document

would show that the said document was signed by the petitioner/complainant on 18 th April, 2006 at New Delhi. Therefore, the part of cause of action

has arisen at New Delhi, as such the District Forum, (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in view of Section 11 (2) (c) of the Act had territorial jurisdiction to

entertain the complaint.

In order to properly appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner it would be useful to have a look on Section 11 (1) of the Act

which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum. The relevant section is reproduced as under: -

“ Jurisdiction of the District Forum .â€"(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,â€

(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.â€​

The stand of the petitioner is that his case is covered under Section 11 (2) (c) of the Act as the cause of action had partly arisen within the territory

of Delhi Consumer Court as the application form i.e. deposit registration form (Annexure-E) was signed by the parties at Delhi. In do not find merit in

this contention. Perusal of the copy of the deposit registration form (Annexure-E) placed on record by the petitioner would show that it is signed only

by the petitioner and not by the opposite party.

Merely because the complainant who is resident of Delhi and signed the deposit registration form at Delhi, it cannot be said that part of cause of

action has arisen in Delhi. Further there is no cogent evidence on record to show that aforesaid deposit registration form was submitted to the opposite

party at Delhi or that the booking amount was paid at Delhi. Further it is well settled that in the cases relating to the immovable property the

jurisdiction to entertain the lis is with the Fora within whose jurisdiction the subject property is located.

In view of the discussion above, I do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the impugned order which is based upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Soni Surgical (supra), which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision

petition is accordingly dismissed.