The main legal principle established in the judgment is that a valid jurisdiction clause in a buyer's agreement should be respected and enforced, and parties' agreement for a separate territorial jurisdiction should be upheld, unless specifically barred by some legal provision.

ORDER

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral)- The short facts of the case are that the complainant vide buyer's agreement dated 10.8.2006, copy of which is annexed No. 1 available on the record had executed between the complainant and the OP builder had booked a flat G-9, ground floor, comprising super area of 1232 sq. ft. approx. for a basic price of Rs. 14,80,000. Pursuant to the said agreement, the complainant by 10.11.2006 has paid the OP builder Rs. 14,06,000, and a balance amount of Rs. 74,000 is to be paid by the complainant to the OP at the time of delivery of possession to him. According to the buyer's agreement, the construction was to be completed by December, 2007 but no date for delivery of possession was mentioned either in the buyer's agreement or the allotment letter dated 24.7.2006 issued by the OP in favour of the complainant. A clever move on the part of the OP. The contention of the complainant is that on his recent visit, he found that at Ganpati's Emrald Heights Apartments at Shastri Puram, Agra where Flat No. G-9 was allotted to the complainant, no such flat exists at the site. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP enquiring about all that, which was served by the complainant on 31.3.2010, which was received by the OP, but in vain. The complainant then finally called upon the OP to cancel the allotment and refund his entire money along with interest and compensation. The complainant has now come to this Commission with the following prayers:

(i) To summon the OP for the deficiency in service and delay in delivery of the booked flat to the complainant.

(ii) To confirm the cancellation of the said booked flat by the complainant and pass the necessary orders for the re-payment of Rs. 21,55,300 which, contains principal amount, interest thereon, loan amount, damage for mental agony, damage for loss of credit worthiness, cheque bounce charges and other misc. expenses as described in para-13 of his complaint.

(iii) To allow the interest @ 24% p.a. till the realization of the entire amount as per para-13 of his complaint.

2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Counsel for the complainant.

3. Clause 30 of the Buyer's Agreement quoted hereinafter, provides specifically with regard to the jurisdiction of disputes relating to the buyer's agreement;

"that the Court of Agra-UP alone will have the exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising of the Agreement."

4-5. On query from the Counsel of the complainant, that how this complaint may be maintainable before this Commission at Delhi, the answer of the Counsel is that the Head Office of the OPs is situated in New Delhi, the buyer's agreement between the parties was executed in Delhi. All the payments made by the complainant to OP were made in Delhi. He has referred to Section 11(2)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in support of his arguments, which is being reproduced hereinafter:

"any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution."

6. It should be noticed that the property is situated at Agra. The cause of action will therefore deemed to have arisen at Agra. The Head Office of the OP developers is in Delhi. The agreement, and the payments were made in Delhi. The cause of action will, therefore, also arise in Delhi. Under law, therefore, the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen at both the places Agra and Delhi.

7. The parties have agreed that for settlement of any dispute, the Agra Courts in Uttar Pradesh will have jurisdiction. The agreement between the parties in this regard, cannot therefore be invalidated on the ground that the agree