SUBEDAR MAJOR (RETD.) JASWANT SINGH vs Meerut Development Authority

WE take up complaint bearing No. 4 of 2000 filed by the complainant against the Meerut Development Authority and another.

HERE the complainant is an allottee of residential plot of C-1 category at Shatabdi Nagar at Meerut. Its price was Rs. 56,000/- at the time it was advertised by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 6.12.1989. The grievance of the complainant is that price has been enhanced to Rs. 67,200/- without assigning any reason and that too at a delayed stage on 8.7.1993. It has been alleged that the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the complainant secured allotment of another plot under Registration No. 63100/3581 on the basis of another application. He constructed three storeys on the second plot including basement and details thereof are given in para No. 18 of his amended complaint. It has been alleged that in case he was allotted plot at the time of his earlier application in 1991-92, the cost of construction would not have escalated by Rs. 3,87,800/- in the year 1998-99 when he actually made the construction. The relief claimed by the complainant is described as under : (i) Refund of Rs. 30,375/- together with interest at the rate of 21% from the date of deposit. (ii) Rs. 3.87 lacs on account of delayed construction of house/escalation in the cost of construction. (iii) Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of diabetic disease. (iv) Rs. 3 lacs on account of mental agony, depression. (v) Rs. 5 lacs to Smt. Surinder Kaur, the beneficiary on account of her ailment. (vi) Rs. 8,000/- for pursuing the case at Meerut. (vii) Rs. 3,500/- on account of fee paid to the Architecture. (viii) Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

In a Revision Petition No. 163 of 1991, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Smt. Sunita Garg, decided on 18.3.1992, the National Commission, New Delhi held that the District Forum, Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against Ghaziabad Development Authority. The relevant observations made by the National Commission are reproduced as under : "The mere fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat was remitted through the branch of the Vijaya Bank at Chandigarh will not entitle the complainant to contend that any part of the cause of action had arisen in Chandigarh. The District Forum, Chandigarh, was therefore, perfectly right in the view taken by it that it had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the complaint."

IN the case in hand also, the aforesaid authority shall be applicable because the plot in question is situated at Meerut. Besides this, as pointed out by Mr. Lohan, learned Counsel for the respondent, there are a large number of questions of fact and law in this complaint. Further the mere fact that Rs. 5,000/- was deposited with and remitted through Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh, as described in para No. 3 of the amended complaint, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Commission, at Chandigarh. IN these circumstances, on the plea of territorial jurisdiction, the complaint is hereby rejected. Complaint No. 5 of 2000 Similarly, in Complaint No. 5 of 2000, which relates to another plot allotted vide registration No. 00063100 where also facts and circumstances are similar has been considered and in view of the reasons discussed above, it also stands rejected. Complaints rejected.