SAROJ AGGARWAL vs UNITECH LTD & ORS

This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 20.5.2015 passed by State Commission in Complaint No. 93 of 2015- Saroj Aggarwal Vs. Unitech Ltd. & Ors.; by which complaint was ordered to be returned for filing in appropriate forum.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant had purchased four FDRs (Annexure C-1 to C-4) total amounting to Rs. 19 lacs, from the Opposite Parties through Opposite Party No. 3/respondent No. 3, the details of which are mentioned in para No. 3 of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant surrendered the said FDRs, which were duly received by opposite party No. 3 but till date, he had not received the maturity amount of the same (FDRs). It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 3 a number of times, and also informed opposite party No. 1& 2/ respondent No. 1 &2, telephonically with a request to release the maturity amount of all the FDRs, but they did not pay any heed. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Learned State Commission after hearing complainant, returned complaint in original and directed complainant to file it before appropriate State Commission having territorial jurisdiction against which this appeal has been filed.

Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record.

Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is a senior citizen and part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh even then Learned State Commission committed error in returning complaint, hence, appeal be admitted.

Perusal of record reveals that all FDRs were issued by registered office of opposite party- Unitech Ltd. situated at New Delhi which were signed by duly authorized signatory of New Delhi office. Merely because complainant presented FDRs for release of maturity amount at branch office of opposite party No. 1 i.e. opposite party No. 3''s branch office, which were sent by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1, State Commission at Chandigarh where branch office of opposite party No. 3 is situated, does not get territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Learned State Commission after referring judgment of this Commission in Puran Chand Wadhwa Vs. Hamil Era Textiles Ltd.,2003 4 CPJ 26 (NC''s case and judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 4 CPJ 40 (SC), rightly observed that no cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission at Chandigarh and rightly returned complaint for presentation before appropriate forum having territorial jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is a senior citizen and in such circumstances, Learned State Commission ought to have decided complaint on merits and he would be in difficulty in going to Delhi. This argument is devoid of force. Merely because complainant is a senior citizen, a Consumer Forum which does not have territorial jurisdiction cannot entertain complaint on the ground that complainant is residing within its territorial jurisdiction. Not only this, when complainant has preferred appeal before this Commission in New Delhi, he can also file complaint before State Commission, Delhi from where FDRs were received and there cannot be any difficulty in filing complaint in Delhi.

In the light of above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed in limini at admission stage.

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage.