JYOTI CHOPRA vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THE Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), opposite party in this case, launched a housing scheme called Indira Puram for the development of plots and construction of apartments/houses in Ghaziabad as per terms and conditions in the brochure (Annexure B). Miss Jyoti Chopra, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, applied on 31.7.89 for allotment of a plot. She deposited a sum of Rs. 42,020/- alongwith the application by means of a cheque drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi payable at Ghaziabad. Possession of the plot was to be delivered to the complainant by about July ''91. She made payment of various ''amounts totalling Rs. 5,12,070/-. Vide letter dated 19.12.92, the complainant received intimation that she had been allotted plot in Shakti Khand, Sector 2/61. She was, however, not delivered possession of the said plot for another one year i.e. upto December, ''93. In fact, the complainant came to know that development work of the plots had not been carried out and there was no prospect of the possession being delivered in the near future. She, accordingly, requested vide her letter dated 1.1.94 for the refund of the amount deposited by her. She also furnished an affidavit on 8.2.94 as required by the opp. party. Having failed to receive the amount, she caused legal notice dated 18.8.94 to be served asking for refund of the amount together with interest @ 24%, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as costs of litigation. Ultimately, the present complaint was filed on 12.12.94.

IN the written version filed by GDA, it was stated that no part of cause of action had accrued at Delhi and the FORA in Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction. With regard to period of delivery of possession it was stated that the period of two years mentioned in the brochure was only tentative and no firm date was fixed for the delivery of possession. The receipt of the amount and request for its refund were admitted. It was further stated that the GDA was entitled to deduct 25% of the registration amount of Rs. 42,000/-, which works out to Rs. 10,500/-, and the balance amount of Rs. 4,92,109/- was being refunded. With regard to payment of interest, it was stated that there was no stipulation with regard thereto in the brochure and no interest was payable in the event of cancellation/surrender of the plot. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the record including the written note submitted by Mr. A.P. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

The primary question arising, this case is regarding the territorial jurisdiction. According to Mr. A.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the complainant, the offer appearing in the newspapers and the brochure issued by the GDA was accepted at Delhi, payment of earnest money was made through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Delhi in terms of the conditions laid down in the brochure and, therefore, part of cause of action arose in Delhi and this Commission had territorial jurisdiction. The contention of Mr. Kulshreshta, learned Counsel for the opp. party, on the other hand, is that the payment of earnest money through a Bank situated in Delhi did not amount to part of cause of action accruing here and that this question stood decided by a decision of the National Commission in GDA v. Smt. Sunita Garg Revision Petition No. 163 of 1991 decided on 18.3.92, which was followed by National Commission in Ramlal v. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, First Appeal No. 286/93 decided by the National Commission on 11.1.95 reported in II (1995) CPJ 121 (NC). After going through these decisions we find that they fully apply to the facts of the present case and this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction.

MR. Kulshreshta informed us that a cheque for Rs. 4,92,109/- dated 16.12.95 had been sent to the complainant in token of acceptance of the cheque had been received by opp. party. Learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was entitled to interest as well as adequate compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party in failing to deliver developed plot within a reasonable time-frame agreed to in the brochure. We do not propose to go into this question for the simple reason that in our view, we do not have territorial jurisdiction in this case. It will be open to the complainant to have her remedy for the recovery of the compensation according to law by making a fresh complaint in the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction in the matter. We dispose of the complaint in these terms. A copy of the order be conveyed to both the parties. Complaint disposed of. _______________