VIDYA vs NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING BOARD

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated the 4.12.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. TC/1563/1998 - entitled Smt. Vidya v. National Capital Region Planning Board & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, Smt. Vidya, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2, the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, in the daily THE Hindustan Times, the appellant had applied for one plot under category B-1 through application form No. 6447 and had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 13.9.1989 as registration money against the total cost of the plot amounting to Rs. 1,12,500/-. It was stated that thereafter the appellant received a letter from respondent No. 2, Meerut Development Authority directing the appellant to further deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by 15.3.1990, which was also duly deposited by the appellant. THEreafter the appellant received another letter dated 1.12.1994 from the respondent Meerut Development Authority intimating the appellant that the balance amount together with interest be paid within a week from the date of the receipt of the above said communication failing which the deposited amount would be forfeited and the allotment would be cancelled. It was stated that unable to manage the full payment, the appellant requested for the refund of the amount deposited by her. As per the case of the appellant, there was no justification on the part of the respondent, Meerut Development Authority, in demanding the full payment because in terms of the scheme floated by the respondent, Meerut development Authority as advertised in the daily newspaper the payment of the cost of the plot was to be made in easy instalments extending from 12 to 15 years. It was stated that despite repeated requests the amount deposited was not refunded as a result of which the appellant had to file the complaint. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. THE appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (National Capital Region Planning Board), it was stated that the above said respondent was in no way connected/involved with the allotment of plots by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 had not obtained any approval/consent from respondent No. 1 and as such respondent No. 1 was not a necessary or proper party. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Meerut Development Authority, certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, filed by the appellant, were taken including the objection that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the appellant. On merits while admitting the floating of the scheme the deposit of the registration amount, allotment of the plot in favour of the appellant, it was stated on behalf of the above said respondent that the appellant had sent a letter dated 8.2.1991 for the refund of the amount in question and in response thereof a letter dated 6.9.1991 bearing No. 9309 was addressed to the appellant asking the appellant to complete certain formalities which the appellant did not complete. It was denied that the respondent refused to refund the amount to the appellant. It was stated that the amount could not be refunded as the appellant did not complete the formalities required vide letter dated 6.9.1991. Tt was stated in the reply/written version filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the complaint filed by the appellant deserved to be dismissed with costs.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that no relief has been claimed against respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 has been impleaded by the appellant just to file the complaint before the District Forum functioning in the Union Territory of Delhi. The learned District Forum has further held that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the appellant and on the basis of the above findings has passed the impugned order.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record it is not in dispute that respondent No. 2, the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) had floated a scheme by name Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme and an advertisement in respect of the said scheme was issued by respondent No. 2 in the daily The Hindustan Times (copy at page 13 of the paper book as Annexure-B). It is also not in dispute that the appellant had applied under the above said scheme for a plot and had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as registration money on 13.9.1989. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was allotted a plot measuring 250 sq. metres bearing No. C-133, Sector-V, Phase-I, Shatabdi Nagar, Meerut in the draw held on 11.1.1990. Further deposit of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by the appellant with respondent No. 2 is also not in dispute. The only question requiring consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the District Forum was justified in holding that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since payments by the appellant were made in Delhi, the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the appellant and was not justified to dismiss the complaint on the above ground. In our opinion, the above contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit in view of the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipin Kumar Kohli, reported as I (1995) CPJ 235 (NC). In the above said decision in case Haryana Urban Development Authority, the Hon''ble National Commission has held : "Under Clause (c) of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is one of the three alternative grounds for conferring territorial jurisdiction, the complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum, within the local limits in whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It is established on record that the complainant deposited in cash on 18th October, 1984, a sum of Rs. 2,889/- with the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi, on account of earnest money with the Application No. 003430 on HUDA Account for HUDA Estate, Faridabad. The applications were to be made and to reach the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad directly or through the branches of the authorised Banks (including Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi) latest by 19th October, 1984. The mere fact that the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi, received the earnest money of Rs. 2,889/- in cash from the complainant and remitted to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, does not mean that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Receipt of the payment by Estate Officer, Faridabad, and its non-refund with interest would be a part of cause of action. Supposing the complainant had deposited the money in a Bank and obtained a Bank Draft for the amount of earnest money from a branch of any Bank from anywhere in India but payable to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and had forwarded it along with the application to Estate Officer, Faridabad no part of cause of action could be said to rise at the place from where the Bank Draft was obtained. The Bank acted only as an agent of the complainant in issuing the Bank Draft. In this case, instead of a Bank Draft the amount was paid in cash and received by the Indian Bank, New Delhi, and remitted to the Estate Officer, HUDA, at Faridabad. It was a facility which was provided but the payment of the earnest money had to be remitted to the Estate Officer, Faridabad, either directly by the applicant or through the authorised Banks. Therefore, no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi."

(Emphasis supplied) The above decision of the Apex Commission virtually clinches the matter finally and placing reliance on the above decision of the Hon''ble National Commission, we have no hesitation in holding that the order being impugned in the present appeal suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.