JASWANT SINGH (SUBEDAR) vs Meerut Development Authority

THIS order will govern the disposal of FA Nos. 118 of 2000 and 122 of 2000 which arise out of a common order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh dated 27.4.2000 holding that the Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain Complaint Case Nos. 4 of 2000 and 5 of 2000.

ORDER under appeal notices the facts of Complaint Case No. 4 of 2000. Facts in complaint case No. 5 of 2000 relating to another plot are similar to that of complaint case No. 4 of 2000. Appellant was allotted a residential plot of C-l category in Shatabdi Nagar, Meerut. In the advertisement, the price of this category of plot was quoted as Rs. 56,000. Appellant deposited Rs. 5,000 on 6.12.1989. Price of the plot was enhanced to Rs. 67,200 on 8.7.1993. It was alleged that as possession of the plot was not delivered within reasonable time, the appellant secured allotment of another plot under registration No. 63100/3581 and he constructed 3-storeyed house thereon. It was further stated that in case the appellant had been allotted plot in 1991-92, the cost of construction would not have escalated by Rs. 3,87,800 in the year 1998-99 when the appellant constructed the house. The reliefs claimed in Complaint Case No. 4 of 2000 were as under : (1) "Refund of Rs. 30,375 together with interest @ 31% from the date of deposit; (2) Rs. 3.87 lakh on account of delayed construction of house/escalation in the cost of construction; (3) Rs. 5 lakh on account of diabetic disease; (4) Rs. 3 lakh on account of mental agony, depression; (5) Rs. 5 lakh to Smt. Surender Kaur, the beneficiary on account of her ailment; (6) Rs. 8,000 for pursuing the case at Meerut; (7) Rs. 3,500; on account of fee paid to the architect; and (8) Rs. 5,000 as litigation ex-penses."

The State Commission was of the view that mere fact that amount of Rs. 5,000 was deposited with and remitted through Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh to respondent No. 1 Authority would not confer territorial jurisdiction on it to entertain the complaint. Reliance was placed on the decision in R.P. No. 63/1991, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Smt. Sunita Garg, decided on 18.3.1992 by this Commission.

Contention advanced by the appellant who argued in person, was that Clause No. 12 of the Brochure issued by respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1-Authority provided for submission of application for registration and deposit of registration fee with the branch of Punjab National Bank in Sector 17, Chandigarh and by virtue of deposit of Rs. 5,000 towards registration money on 6.12.1989 with that branch, a part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh. As part of that submission, it was further urged that instalment letter dated 11.2.1991 sent by respondent No. 1-Authority was received on the address of PO Chandi Mandir; amount of 1st instalment sent to respondent No. 1-Authority from PO Chandi Mandir Cantt; amounts of 2nd and 3rd instalments also remitted to respondent No. 1-Authority from Chandigarh and receipt of Instalment letter and remittance of the amounts of three instalments from the said places further furnish part of cause of action at Chandigarh and the State Commission had, thus, acted erroneously in reaching the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. On the other hand, the submission advanced by Ms. Reena Singh for respondent No. 1-Authority was that Clause 22 of the Brochure (copy at pp 23-26) ousted the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora other than at Meerut to entertain a complaint and the complaint, therefore, could not have been instituted at Chandigarh. Towards the end, Clause 22 says that every litigation will be under the jurisdiction of Civil Courts situated in Meerut. Since Consumer Fora are not Civil Courts, the bar of jurisdiction as provided in said clause would not be applicable. As may be seen from aforesaid Clause 12 of the Brochure, the Andhra Bank, Punjab National Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce were authorised to receive the applications for registration and registration money in the branches noted in that clause on behalf of respondent No. 1-Authority. Respondent No. 1-Authority does not have any branch office at those places. Plot, the possession whereof was allegedly not given within reasonable time was situated in Meerut. In our view, neither deposit of Rs. 5,000 towards registration money with Chandigarh branch of Punjab National Bank nor receipt of instalment letter or remittance of three instalments from PO Chandi Mandir/Chandigarh by the appellant would furnish a part of cause of action within meaning of Section 11(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) to file complaint at Chandigarh. There is, thus, no legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act.

APPELLANT has also filed application for transfer of complaints under Section 22B at Chandigarh. Grounds taken in application do not justify transferring of cases to Chandigarh. For the foregoing discussion, while maintaining the order of State Commission, both the appeals as also transfer application are dismissed.

APPELLANT is allowed six weeks'' time to file complaints based on same cause of action before the competent District Forum at Meerut. No order as to cost. Appeals dismissed.