RAMESH KUMAR DUA vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THIS is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had booked a flat in the Self Finance Scheme advertised by the O.P. and had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,020/- on 27.7.1991 in the O.P.''s authorised Bank i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi-110092. Thereafter the complainant was allotted a flat/house under the "Hastinapuram Housing Scheme-Ashirawad Expandable Houses" at Ghaziabad vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 20.2.1992. The complainant paid the instalmen as demanded from timetotime and in all deposited an amount of Rs. 2,50,018/- with the O.P. against receipts/challans. On repeated inquiries as to the progress of construction, the complainant came to know that the scheme in question had been abandoned by the O.P. The said fact was thereafter confirmed by the O.P.''s letter dated 8.3.1996 whereby the complainant was required to surrender all the original documents, cash receipts/challans, demand letters, etc. for taking the refund from the O.P. However, it was only after protracted correspondence that the complainant received the refund of Rs. 2,83,520.95 only towards the principal amount, as well as interest @ 5% p.a. upto March, 1996.

THE complainant aggrieved by the quantum of interest paid by the O.P. as well as loss suffered on account of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. filed the present complaint praying for directions to the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 9,81,805/- (as detailed in para 11 of the complaint towards interest, compensation and cost) together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation of the amount. O.P. in its reply/written version filed before this Commission has raised a number of preliminary objections, including the objection that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.

WE have carefully perused the evidence and documents/material placed on record. However arguments in this case have been heard only on the point as to whether this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case entitled Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sepporalli and Others, reported as III (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), as well as the decision of Hon''ble National Commission in case entitled Indian Airlines Corporation v. Consumer Education Research Society, reported as II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC)=1986-94 Consumer 925 (NS). In this regard the contention of the complainant is that since the application form for booking the flat in question was filled and deposited along with the earnest amount at Delhi and some instalments were also deposited at Delhi, therefore, part of the cause of action had arisen at Delhi. Furthermore communication of the O.P. dated 8.3.1996 regarding the abandonment of the scheme in question had also been received by the complainant at Delhi and, therefore, this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On the other hand, the thrust of the O.P.''s argument is that merely because the application form and some instalments were deposited in the Bank at Delhi the Redressal Agencies at Delhi under the Act have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint especially in view of the fact that the amount was payable to the Ghaziabad Development Authority/O.P. at Ghaziabad. WE are inclined to accept the view taken by the O.P. that merely because O.P./GDA authorised some Banks at Delhi to receive payments on its behalf, for the convenience of the applicants, no part of the cause of action can be said to have arisen at Delhi. The various branches of the Banks were merely acting as agents for the O.P. for collecting the registration amount and instalments. It is an admitted fact that the O.P./GDA has no branch in Delhi and also that the flat/house booked by the complainant was to be constructed at Ghaziabad (UP). Therefore, no part of the cause of action has arisen at Delhi and in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case entitled Union Bank of India v. M/s. Sepporalli and Others (supra) and the decision of Hon''ble National Commission in case entitled Indian Airlines Corporation v. Consumer Education Research Society (supra), as well as an earlier decision of this Commission in case entitled Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ravinder Kumar, reported as II (2000) CPJ 400, wherein the complaint was dismissed on identical grounds by this Commission. WE are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of territorial jurisdiction and as such the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Before concluding it is however clarified that the complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievances raised in the present complaint before the appropriate Redressal Agency and is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in seeking exemption, for time spent in pursuing these proceedings. The present complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.