AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THOUGH not spelt out in so many terms in the complaint as to when the cause of action arose to the complainant it is clear from para 7 of the complaint wherein reference to certain receipts has been made that this transaction dates back to the year 1966. The case of the complainant in short is that he was trapped by the non -applicants in making an offer of selling plots in a particular area of New Delhi pursuant to which an agreement was entered into between the parties and he was offered a plot of land number 458 Block -D at Rs. 20/ - per sq. feet on a monthly instalment of Rs. 80/ - and pursuant to this agree men the started paying the instalments some of which were paid through cheques for which receipts was issued. Subsequently, the plot number was changed and an alternate plot allotted. His case is that after a considerable period of time that the whole transaction was fraudalent and the opposite party No. 1 has handed over the management of the said Company to opposite party No. 2 without informing him. His case is that the opposite party No. 2 even though having knowledge that he was one of the allottees have deprived him of the allotment and have instead been alloting the land to some other person. In this regard he had some correspondence with opposite party which has not been taken notice of. According to him he is prepared to pay instalment and that the opposite party be directed to receive the same and handover possession to him. He is also asking compensation to the tune of Rs. 6.00 lacs.
AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant we find that the complaint is not maintainable for two reasons. Under Section 9 of the J & K State Consumer Protection Act our jurisdiction can only be invoked if the opposite party or some of the opposite party reside within our jurisdiction or if the cause of action has arisen within our jurisdiction. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the cause of action has arisen within our jurisdiction. There is not even a mention that the offer was made through an advertisement which was circulated within the limits of J & K State. The complainant is totally silent about the various dates from 1966 onwards nor has he said about as to what happened between these 30 years. The mere fact that some correspondence has taken place between the parties or that some payments have been sent from J & K State does not constitute cause of action. Where it is a question of immovable property the cause of action is related to the same. In the present case neither the land nor the opposite party is residing within our jurisdiction. Apart from this we may note that this transaction pertains to the year 1966 and according to his own saying the last instalment of Rs. 80/ - has been paid in December, 1966 though there is no specific provision providing for limitation for filing of complaint we have held that stale complaints should not be entertained. From that poin of view also the complaint is staled both for want of jurisdiction and for the reason of the complaint being stale. Dismissed. Complaint dismissed.