The State Commission has jurisdiction over the entire State and unless any part of the cause of action arises elsewhere, it shall exercise jurisdiction over the State only.

Dr. Sunil Kanti Kar, Member—This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant’s case is as follows :

2. A leaflet for the sale of apartments to be constructed by M/s. Pushpa Builders Ltd. under the Vaishali Scheme, Gajiabad, was distributed at Calcutta and the complainant was induced by the aforesaid housing concern at Calcutta to purpose one apartment under the Scheme and for this purpose a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid by the complainant in several instalments. Subsequently, however, the complainant came to know that the representation made in the leaflet was false as there was no permission from the Government to construct a 21 storyed building and that the construction also did not come up by the end of December 1991 as promised. The opposite parties were asked by the complainant to refund the advanced amount with interest @ 24%. Ultimately one lakh of rupees were refunded by the Opposite party and they promised to allot one shop to the complainant in lieu of the balance of the consideration money in their another scheme AAKASH by the end of December, 1992. This scheme also failed and no shop was allotted to the complainant as promised. The complainant has accordingly demanded the refund of the balance money with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum and also adequate compensation for the harassment caused to him.

3. The case is contested by the opposite parties who are the Managing Director and Chairman of M/s. Pushpa Builders Ltd. and the Company itself. Their preliminary objection is that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. According to them the O.P. No. 2-Company has its registered office at New Delhi where the complainant applied for a Unit. The complainant has an account at Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the cheque for Rs. 2.5 lakhs was paid at Delhi. The opposite parties deny that they have any business activity at Calcutta.

4. The next objection raised is that the creation of right and interest in an immovable property does not amount to rendering service within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties have also stated that the complainant did not pay the entire consideration money as promised. The refund of Rs. 1 lakh is admitted but it is stated that the said amount was returned at the request of the complainant. The balance of the consideration money is admitted to have been transferred towards the consideration of a Show Room in Pushpa Vaisali Apartments but it is stated that the complainant failed to make payment even in respect of this Show Room. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is not a bonafide buyer, he never wanted to purchase a unit on payment of full consideration money and there is no question of refund of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as the same was transferred as the booking money of a Show Room in a new project as stated above.

5. The points that arise for decision are :

1. If this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case.

2. If the complainant is a consumer as deferred in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. If the complainant is entitled to get back the money with interest as claimed.

4. What reliefs the complaint is entitled to.

DECISION

6. Point No. 1 : Admittedly the immovable property in respect of which the present dispute has arisen is at Delhi. According to the opposite parties payment was made through cheques drawn on the Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. From the Zerox copies of the receipts filed along with the complaint it is found that one payment was made in cash and the other payments were made by cheques drawn on the Vijaya Bank. This is also not denied.

7. The question, therefore, is how, if at all, any part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Commission. A State Commission is constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act in a particular state by the