LAWS(NCD)-1993-9-67

Y P DAS Vs. SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On September 08, 1993
Y.P.DAS Appellant
V/S
SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh by which the appeal filed by the present respondent against the order of the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala City was accepted.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the present Revision Petition are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party) had advertised a self-financing scheme for construction of a residential complex in Kasumti Zone in Shimla. It may be mentioned here that the registered office of the opposite party, which is a corporate body, is in Shimla. The Revision Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Complainants) had applied for one Type 'C' flat on 25th March, 1986 for allotment under the said scheme and also deposited a sum of Rs. 16,425/- as earnest money with the Punjab National Bank, Ambala City which acted as an agent of the opposite party for receiving the said amount. The application was made on the prescribed form. Thereafter the complainants were duly registered under the said scheme. They paid the stipulated instalments. The last instalment was paid on 5th December, 1988. According to the initial promise made by the opposite party, the allotment of flat and its possession was to be handed over by the Opposite Party to the complainants by the end of year 1988. However, the Opposite Party failed to fulfil its promise and did not hand over the possession of the flat to the complainants resulting in the filing of a complaint by the complainants in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala City on 1st January, 1991 seeking relief of interest on their deposits and for issuing a direction to the Opposite Party for the completion of the flats in some specified time. Rs. 5,000/- as compensation was also prayed for.

(3.) THE District Forum, formulated the following preliminary question for its decision :- "Whether this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and hear this complaint ?"