Consumer Complaint No. : 10/2017 Date of Institution : 03.01.2017 Date of Decision : 03.07.2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Ashok Kumar Sood, H.No.242, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh Complainant. Versus
1. M/s Unitech Ltd., 6 Community Centre Saket, New Delhi -110017 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Unitech Ltd., SCO No.189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. Raj Kumar (Broker), House No.517, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. . Opposite Parties BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER : Ms.Savita Bhandari, Adv. for the complainantArgued by Ms.Vertika H.Singh, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2. OP No.3 in person. PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT In brief, the case of the complainant is that he invested Rs.25,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs No.1 and 2 through OP No.3. He was issued FDR No.1231718 (Annexure C-1) with date of deposit as 30.07.2013 and the date of maturity as 30.07.2016 having maturity value of Rs.36,304/-. The said FDR was carrying interest @ 12.50% p.a. It has been averred that he surrendered the FDR to OP No.1 for its repayment through registered post on 02.08.2016. It has further been averred that he is a senior citizen but the OPs are not paying the maturity amount despite his repeated requests. It has further been averred that the OPs have been asked by the CLB to make arrangement for the repayment to the senior citizen. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. In their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have admitted the factual matrix with regard to the deposit of the amount by the complainant in the fixed deposit scheme. However, it took the preliminary objection that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It has further been pleaded that the complainant never deposited/surrendered the FDR in the office of Chandigarh. It has further been pleaded that the payment of interest on the said FDR was to be made by the Gurgaon Office. It has further been pleaded that the OP-Company is facing immense financial crunch due to the global recession in the real estate sector. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In his separate written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that the complainant had approached him for the deposit of money in the FDR of OPs No.1 and 2 and he is only a sub-broker and the broker was R.R. equity. It has further been pleaded that he is not liable to pay any amount to complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties, OP No.3 in person and have gone through the documents on record. In view of the specific objection taken by OPs No.1 & 2, we would first like to see if this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. The Counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant has invested the amount of Rs.25,000/- in the fixed deposit scheme of OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3 and as such this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. However, OP No.3 is only a facilitator who acted as a facilitator only by transmitting the application, if any, for the fixed deposit and the cheque, if any, for fixed deposit to OP No.1 at New Delhi and that too on the request of the complainant. Here we place reliance upon the judgment of ), inPuran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd., IV (2003) CPJ 26 (NC which it was held as under:
7. Before we go into the question of merits of the case, we would discuss the question of jurisdiction. It is now settled law that while the Consumer Forum has the trappings of a Civil Court but we are not Civil Courts. For substantive purpose, Consumer Protection Act is a wholesome and in itself a complete enactment. section 11 of this act reads as follows :
11. (1) Subject to the other provisions ofJurisdiction of the District Forum this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed Rupees twenty lakhs]. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, (a) the opposite party or each 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; or (b) 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; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
8. While one may concede that Section 20 of C.P.C. and Section 11 of C.P.A., 1986 had a common reading - but this was before the amendment made in the Act in June, 1983. By an amendment to the C.P.A., 1986 in June, 1983, words carries on business or has a branch office or have been added. In our view legislative intent is clear. The amendment is part of the statute and has not been challenged. Consumer Forums cannot go beyond or behind the provisions of the Act. In our view, it is not in dispute that the respondent neither has any business nor any branch office in Chandigarh. The effort by the petitioner to bring in Punjab and Sind Bank as an Agent of the respondent with a view to fall within Section 11(2)(c), is too naive to be accepted and dealt in by us. Bank is only a facilitator to accept the money at the time of floating of debentures and encash cheques issued by the respondent. This is a limited service being rendered by them for all aspiring investors - by no stretch of imagination can they be called the Agents of the respondent. We see no action wholly or the part taking place in Chandigarh - Debentures were issued from Bombay. Two instalments as interest on Debentures were issued from Bombay payable at Chandigarh; Debentures were to be redeemed from Bombay, no action whatsoever could be said to be performed at Chandigarh. We have seen the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of v. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund SEBI & Ors. After going through it we do not find that the present case has anything common with the facts and results of that case as it dealt with situation/cases dealing with injunction. However relying upon the Halsburys Laws of England the Supreme Court goes on to state that, As per as Indian is concerned, the residences of the Company is where the registered office is located. Normally cases should be filed only where the registered office of the Company is situated. The point at issue was more specifically dealt in the context of Companies Act by Honble Supreme Court in the case of v. H.P. Gupta wherein it was held that the cause of action would arise at the place whereHira Lal, registered office of the Company is situated. This view was confirmed/reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of v. 1999 (7) H.V. Jaya Ram ICICI & Ors., Scale 481. National Commission in the case of v. (supra),GDA Smt. Sunita Garg had held that the very fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat (in Ghaziabad) 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. (emphasis supplied). On the point of jurisdiction another point made by the petitioner is that Consumer Protection Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and the poor small investor could not be expected to run to several places in this case to Bombay for recovery of less than Rs. 2,000/-. It also could not be the case of the petitioner that the respondents and similarly placed companies could be facing litigation in thousands of Courts spread over the country. We have also the Honble Supreme Court warning us of the pit falls when it observed in the case of Morgan
v. Stanley Mutual Fund SEBI & Ors.
There is an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism which the Fora seem reality to oblige. We think such a tendency should be curbed....
9. In our view this appears to be the case at the District Forum level. We wish to reiterate that it is admittedly a beneficial legislation, but Forum shall not go out of the boundaries of law provided under the Act to satisfy the desires of anyone. Hence we see no merits in the issue - Consumer Forum at Chandigarh clearly had no jurisdiction under the law to entertain the complaint. The order of the State Commission is as per settled law on the subject. Our view is further bolstered from the order dated 20.05.2015 passed in an identical case by our own Honble State Commission C.C. No.92 of 2015 Ravi Kumar Vs. he relevant paras of the said order reads as under:- Unitech Ltd. and others, t
5. No doubt, the complainant averred that the FDRs were surrendered in the office of Opposite Party No.3 at Chandigarh for obtaining the maturity amount and the same were duly stamped by the said office at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the FDRs were surrendered to Opposite Party No.3, at Chandigarh, did not give rise to any cause of action at Chandigarh. Opposite Party No.3 was only to send the FDRs to the Registered Office at Unitech Limited at New Delhi, for payment of the maturity value. Opposite Party No.3 was only to act as a facilitator. The amount for issuance of the FDRs was sent by the complainant to the Registered Office of Unitech Ltd. at New Delhi. As stated above, the FDRs were also issued by the Registered Office of Unitech Limited, New Delhi. The maturity value of the FDRs was to be paid by the Registered Office (issuing office) of Unitech Limited, New Delhi. 9. . It is, therefore, held that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint and, as such, the same (complaint) is liable to be returned to the complainant, for presenting the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).
10 . For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, in original, alongwith the documents, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, against valid receipt, after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint). Even the order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission has been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No.509/2015 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. and others, . Besides this, the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that decided on 11.01.2016 any cause of action has accrued to him at Chandigarh. A perusal of the FDR (Annexure C-1) shows that the same was issued by M/s Unitech Ltd., having its Regd. Office E, Community Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017. Admittedly, the complainant had surrendered the FDR in question to the Office of OP No.1 at New Delhi. There is no documentary evidence on record to presume that any transaction ever took place between the complainant and OP No.2. It seems that the complainant impleaded OP No.2, in order to bring the dispute within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Mere existence of the Branch/Regional Office of the OP-Company at Chandigarh does not confer jurisdiction upon this Forum to entertain and decide the present complaint. Here we are also strengthened by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. and the operative part of the same reads as National Insurance Co. Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) under :-
4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire 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. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh. XXX XXX XXX
8. Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity [vide G.P Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. Thus, no cause of action, whatsoever, could be said to have arisen to the complainant, within the territorial limits of Chandigarh. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, without touching the merits of the present complaint, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty, to approach the appropriate Forum, having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced
03.07.2017 Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER Sd/- (RAVINDER SINGH) MEMBER