RAJAN KAPOOR Vs. ESTATE OFFICER HUDA AMBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No.1368 of 2006, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, 'the Act') in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the opposite party-HUDA against the order dated 27.04.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula, whereby the said District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the present petitioner alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties by including his name in the list of applicants for allotment of 6 Marlas plot and not for 14 Marlas plot in Ambala. The District Forum partly allowed the said complaint by granting the following relief to the petitioner - complainant:

(2.) It would appear that in appeal, one of the objection / pleas raised on behalf of the appellant-HUDA was in regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of District Forum at Panchkula to entertain and try the complaint and pass the order appealed against by HUDA. The said objection found favour with the State Commission and the State Commission relying a Supreme Court decision in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 CTJ 2 held that the District Forum at Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint by observing as under:

(3.) We have heard Shri G.I.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Ms. Anubha Agrawal, Advocate, learned counsel representing the respondent and have considered their submissions. Learned counsel representing the petitioner - complainant would assail the order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, material obtaining on record and the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Sonic Surgical . The basis of the submission is that firstly, Head Office of HUDA is located at Panchkula and the Chief functionary of HUDA viz., Chief Administrator HUDA has also its office in Panchkula and, therefore, complainant was well within his right to file the complaint before the District Forum Panchkula. The second submission is that in the present case, part of the cause of action had accrued at Panchkula because when the complainant did not find his name in the list of successful allotees for 14 Marlas, he made representation to the Chief Administrator, HUDA and thereafter he was informed that his name existed in the list of allottees for 6 Marlas plot in Ambala which action he challenged before the District Forum. On the other hand, counsel representing the respondent-HUDA fully supported the order passed by the State Commission on the premise that no cause of action had arisen to the complainant within the territory of Panchkula and the complainant has abused the jurisdiction of the said Forum by filing the complaint there.