RAMESH KUMAR DUA Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Ghaziabad Development Authority (G. D. A. ).

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent, GDA floated a scheme for allotment of flats/house under "hastinapuram Housing Scheme-Ashirwad Expendable Houses", sometime in middle 1991. The potential applicants were directed to deposit certain amount and register for allotment, at different Banks mentioned in the scheme itself, which beside other included Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi. The complainant paid the requisite registration amount following the instructions in para 5 of the brochure (which is on record) and the appellant also kept on depositing the instalments demanded from time-to-time and, in all, deposited an amount of Rs. 2,50,018. But since no allotment was being given the matter was taken-up with the respondent and it transpired that the respondent has abandoned the Scheme and when refund was sought by the appellant/complainant, the GDA after protracted correspondences refunded the amount along with interest @ 5% p. a. upto March 1996. The appellant was not satisfied with this and wanted higher rate of interest as well as other compensation based on which a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint holding that the State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. There is no dispute that the prospectus was purchased and application was made in prescribed form, along with 10% of the cost of the house in the prescribed authorised Bank, i. e. , Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi, appearing in para 5 (6) in the brochure, which is located in Delhi. The deposited amount has also been refunded to the complainant in Delhi. Thus, in our view, the cause of action arose in 'part' in Delhi, for the simple reason that the Oriental Bank of Commerce, located in Delhi issued the brochure, accepted the form and money being the agent of the respondent, GDA. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that action in part arose in Delhi and in view of the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Delhi State Commission shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the case.