SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(HP) 113

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
B.MISRA PRESIDEN,V.VERMA,PRATIMA MALHOTRA
K.K.KBANNA - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING-CUM-CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR H.U D A. - Respondent
Complaint No. 8 of 1991
Decided On : 07/06/1993

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s):Complainant in person. For the respondent(s):Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

A consumer complaint can only be filed before a consumer forum within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose or where the principal office of the corporation is located.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 11(C) - HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1977 - SECTION 3(2) - INDIAN AIRLINES CORP. V. CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY, AHMEDABAD - NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN SHIMLA - NO JURISDICTION OF H.P. STATE CONSUMER COMMISSION - COMPLAINT DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Complainant applied for a residential plot in Gurgaon, deposited earnest money, and made inquiries about the allotment. He received a refund of the earnest money without demand and filed a complaint with the H.P. State Consumer Commission seeking allotment of a plot and damages.

Finding of the Court:

The H.P. State Consumer Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because no part of the cause of action arose in Shimla. The principal office of the respondents was in Chandigarh, the advertisement for the plots was issued from Chandigarh, and the plots were located in Gurgaon.

Issues: Whether the H.P. State Consumer Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere fact that the complainant obtained the application form and remitted money through a bank in Shimla did not constitute an act falling within the ambit of Section 11(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also held that the HUDCO was a body corporate with its principal office in Chandigarh and had no subordinate office in Shimla. Therefore, the H.P. State Consumer Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Pratlma Malhotra, Member—The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant applied for a residential plot measuring 14 marlas (350 sq. meters) in Sector 31-3^A Part 30, 39, 40 and 41 at Gurgaon in response to the advertisement appearing in the newspaper In the name of Respondent No.

1. He also deposited the earnest money Rs. 13,500 through Punjab National Bank, Shimla on 17-8-1988.

2. That the plots were to be allotted by draw of lots. The complainant wrote letters on 12-12-1989, 10-4-1990 and 14-8-1990 enquiring about the allotment of plot but according to him no response was given by the respondents. On 2-12-1990, however, he received the refund of earnest money by draft on 7-12-1990 for Rs. 13,500 without any demand on his part. It is alleged that by sending the refund of earnest money, Respondent No. 2 has caused grievous mental agony and tension to the complainant and financial hardship By way of relief the complainant bas prayed for allotment of a plot in one of the residential complex of Gurgaon and Rs. 1 lac damages for mental harassment. He has also claimed another sum of Rs. 1 lac on account of increase in the construction cost which he would have to bear for building a house on such a plot. Another sum of Rs. 87 40 paise has been claimed on account of postal and miscellaneous charges incurred by him The respondents have filed reply controverting the claims on merit besides raising the preliminary objection to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

3. At the threshold we have to decide the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents no cause of action has arisen in Shimla to give jurisdiction to the H. P. State Consumer Commission. The principal office of the respondents is situated at Chandigarh, Advertisement for allotment of plots were issued from Chandigarh, applications were entertained, draw was held, and allotment letters were despatched from Chandigarh. The plots itself were located at Gurgaon. Thus no part of the cause of action had arisen at Shimla. The mere fact that the complainant had obtained application form and remitted money through a Bank at Shimla, according to him, does not constitute an act falling within the ambit of section 11 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed before us a copy of the order of the National Commission in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Smt Sunita Garg. Rev Pet. No 163 of 1991 (NO, in which it has been held that the mere fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat was remitted through the branch of 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 has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the complaint In addition the learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to R Sathyanaravana v The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, I (1993) CPJ 279, where it has been held that as the Supreme Court function in New Delhi, "the Karnataka State Commission" has no territorial jurisdiction to give relief sought for by him."

4. The second limb of his argument is that the HUD \ is a body corporate as described in section 3 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short of the Act, 1977), that its principal office is situated at Chandigarh notified under sub-section (I) ibid and that it has no subordinate office functioning at Shimla. Therefore in the light of the order of the National Commission in Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and another, (i 99;) 1 CPR 4 (NC), the H. P. State Commission has no jurisdiction. According to the above Order j "it is clear beyond doubt that where the defendant against


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top