Ramesh Chander Dhawan vs Savita Dhawan

This appeal has been filed by the appellants, Ramesh Chander Dhawan and another against the order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in CC No. 1068 of 2017.

Brief facts of the case are that in February, 2011 the respondent launched a residential project namely "North Eye" situated at Sector-74, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. On 25.4.2011 the appellants booked a flat in the aforementioned project by making payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the boking of the flat /unit in pursuance to which the appellants received the Provisional Allotment Letter from the respondent towards the provisional allotment of Unit No.2843, Floor No.28, Tower North Eye, Cape Town. On 27.4.2011 the appellants having opted for the Construction Linked Plan (CLP) started making payments to the respondent towards the said flat and acknowledgement receipts against the same were duly issued by the respondent. On 1.10.2011 the allotment letter was executed by the respondent in the joint name of the appellants at the registered office of the respondent. As per the terms of the allotment letter, the possession of the said unit was to be handed over to the appellants by December, 2014. The appellants thereafter continued to make payments as and when demanded by the respondent and the acknowledgement receipts with regard to the same were duly issued by the respondent.

On 9.12.2014, since the construction of the project was a pre-requisite for the demand of money, the respondent offered a special payment scheme as per which the buyers were required to make 60% payment on immediate basis, 20% on completion of structure and the balance 20% at the time of possession. The appellants having already made payment of 60% of the total amount found the said scheme to be of their convenience and thus on 9.12.2014, an addendum to the allotment letter dated 1.10.2011 was executed between the appellants and the respondent at the respondent's corporate office at Noida. The appellants thereafter visited the construction site on numerous occasions wherein the representatives of the respondent, time and again gave false assurances to the appellants with regard to the handing over of the possession of the flat soon. On 15.6.2017 the appellants thus filed a complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi seeking refund of an amount of Rs.23,76,013/- alongwith interest and compensation from the respondent. On 1.8.2017, the State Commission passed an order directing return of the said complaint to be presented before the appropriate forum on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission.

Hence the present appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the State Commission has failed to take into consideration the contents of Para 2 of the Complaint wherein the appellants have specifically pleaded that the registered office of the respondent is situated at New Delhi. The State Commission has also not considered that stamp paper upon which the allotment letter dated 1.10.2011 has been executed has been purchased from Delhi which fact itself demonstrates that the said allotment letter has been executed at the respondent's registered office at New Delhi. Hence, part cause of action arose in New Delhi thereby giving requisite jurisdiction to Delhi State Commission to adjudicate the matter.

Learned counsel further stated that the State Commission has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) Supreme Court Case 135, to deny the admission of complaint by the Delhi State Commission. It was argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) only mentions that the complaint cannot be filed in all the branch offices and can only be filed at the branch office where the whole or part cause of action has arisen. This judgement does not preclude the Head Office, Registered Office or Corporate Office and also does not equate these offices with the Branch offices. Thus, clearly this judgment was not applicable in the present case.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the record.

Clearly in the present case, the registered office of the OP is in New Delhi and the allotment letter has been signed by both the parties at the registered office at New Delhi. The State Commission has only considered the addendum which was mainly for the revised payment plan and which was signed at Noida office of the respondent. Addendum is the supplementary agreement but the main agreement i.e. the allotment letter was signed at the Registered Office at New Delhi. Clearly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd.(supra) relates to the interpretation of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as given in Section 17(2), that a complainant can also file complaint at a place where the OP has a branch office. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed inter alia that the complaint can be filed only at those places having branch offices where whole or part of cause of action has arisen. In the present case, first of all, there is no branch office involved in the matter, rather the allotment letter has been signed at the Registered Office of the OP which is at New Delhi. The complainants now want to rescind this agreement and want refund of the amount paid to the OP. The territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the complaint has been provided under Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as follows :

"(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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 State Commission 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."

From the above, it is very clear that under sub-para (a), even if we leave the word branch office, clearly the OP has the registered office located in New Delhi. It will obviously be presumed that the OP is carrying on business and works for gain from their registered office.

Based on the above discussion, I find that Delhi State Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as the registered office of the respondent/OP is located in New Delhi which is within the jurisdiction of the Delhi State Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.7.2017 passed by the State Commission is set aside and the State Commission is directed to restore the Consumer Complaint No.1068 of 2017 to its original number and to decide the complaint case as per law.

Appellants to appear before the State Commission on 18th July, 2018.