(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT). The brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are that the complainants applied for allotment of flat to the Ops and flat No.202, 2 floor, situated in building/tower 9And measuring 1850 sq. feet was allotted by the Ops in the Multi-story Residential Group Housing Societies, Sector-20, Panchkula vide agreement dt. 21.07.2011. The complainants have signed the said agreement at Kaithal. The complainants have deposited the dues as per the agreement but the Ops failed to complete the construction of the said building within 3 years as per clause 25 of the said agreement, for which they are liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. feet per month on the amount already paid till the completion of the development work and hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 filed the reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum at Kaithal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the project was situated at Panchkula; the application form was submitted to Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi and all payments were also made there. It is further stated that as per Clause-81 of the agreement dt. 21.07.2011, the courts at Panchkula alone and the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone shall have the jurisdiction in all matters arising out of/touching and/or concerning the application and/or Apartment Buyers by the agreement and the said agreement has been signed by the complainant which was executed at New Delhi. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The Op No.1 moved two applications in the present complaint. The first application was filed by Op No.1 on 04.10.2016 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the matter to Arbitration and the second application was filed on 29.11.2016 by Op No.1 for return of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that instead of deciding the application regarding Arbitration Clause, it is necessary that the application regarding territorial jurisdiction is to be decided firstly.
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties on both the applications.
5. In the application dt. 29.11.2016, the Op No.1 stated that the flat in dispute is situated in Sector-20 at Panchkula, so, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In the reply to application dt. 29.11.2016, the complainants alleged that the said application is not maintainable as the Op No.1 has already taken the objection in the reply to the main complaint. It is also alleged in the reply that the agreement was signed by the complainants at Kaithal. It is also mentioned in the reply that the opposite parties have also registered office at Kaithal, so, this Forum at Kaithal has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the complainants submitted a catena of authorities which are mostly regarding the application under Arbitration Clause. In support of this application regarding territorial jurisdiction, he submitted computerized copy of order passed by Honble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in complaint case No.230 of 2016 decided on 02.09.2016 titled as Lt. Col. Dalvinder Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & another.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, it is admitted case of the parties that the flat in question is situated in Sector-20, Panchkula. From the agreement placed on the file by Op No.1, it is clear that the same was executed at New Delhi on 21.07.2011. According to Op No.1, the complainants had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The clause-81 of the agreement runs as under:- 81All or any disputes arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of the application and/or Apartment Buyers Agreement including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof and the respective rights and obligations of the parties shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion, failing which, the same shall be settled through arbitration. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments/modifications thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at an appropriate location in Panchkula, by a sole arbitrator who shall be appointed by Owner of their nominee. The allottee(s) hereby confirms Owner that he/shall have no objection to this appointment. The Courts at Panchkula alone and the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh alone shall have the jurisdiction in all matters arising out of/touching and/or concerning the application and/or Apartment Buyers Agreement. The contention of complainants that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has been taken by Op No.1 in its reply and so, the present application of Op No.1 is not maintainable has no force. No doubt, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has been taken in the reply by Op No.1 but this does not mean that the Op No.1 is barred from moving the present application. Similarly, the contention of complainants that the agreement was signed by the complainant at Kaithal has no force because it is very much clear from the beginning of the agreement that the same was executed at New Delhi. The contention of complainants that the Ops have registered office at Kaithal has also no force. The Op No.1 has denied that they have any sub office at Kaithal. Moreover, the complainants have not made any sub office at Kaithal of the Op No.1 as opposite party in his complaint. In the authority produced by the complainants mentioned above, it is held that where the Ops have sub office, the District Forum at that place has jurisdiction but in the present case, the Op No.1 has no sub office in Kaithal District, therefore, the said authority of the complainant is not applicable to the facts of present case. Even otherwise, we can rely upon the authority reported as in this regard, whereinSonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252 it has been observed by Honble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case as-well-as in view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and authority of (mentionedSonic Surgical Vs. NIC supra), we are of the considered view that this Forum at Kaithal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. As this Forum at Kaithal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, so, no order is required to be passed on the application regarding referring the matter to Arbitrator.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the application that this Forum at Kaithal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and resultantly, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainants will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced. Dt.14.02.2017. (Jagmal Singh), President. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh), Member. Member. [HON'BLE MR. Jagmal Singh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh] MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Harisha] MEMBER