Haryana Urban Development Authority                              ----  Petitioner
Vs.
Vipan Kumar Kohli                                                          ----  Respondent

Before :
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member
            Dr.(Mrs.) R. Thamarajakshi, Member

S.S. Chadha J. Member

      Whether the District Forum, Delhi lacked inherent jurisdiction is the question raised in this Revision Petition.

      The petitioner offered residene plots in Sector-23, Faridabad for allotment on freehold basis to the  public in general and other sections of the society according to the terms and conditions advertised. The details of plots available, rates and earnest money, eligibility and other conditions, date of receipt of application by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA), Faridabad etc. were detailed therein. The respondent herein, complainant before the District Forum, made an application along with key-plan folder with the proof of deposit of the earnest money of Rs.2,889/- i.e, 10 % of the price fixed for allotment of the plot applied for. The amount of Rs.2,889/- was deposited on 18th October, 1984 with the Indian Bank South Extension, New Delhi for HUDA Estate, Faridabad on HUDA account.

      As there was some dispute regarding the land out of which plots for Sector-23 were to be carved out and allotted, the petitioner took a decision that draw for this Sector will not be held. The complainant was informed on 1.7.1992 to take the refund of Rs.2,889/-. The complainant wrote on 8th September, 1992 requesting for refund of the amount of Rs.2,889/- plus interest on registration amount permissible under the rules. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad refunded the earnest money by a cheque dated 30th September'1992.

      Complaint No.420 of 1993 dated 12th February, 1993 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Delhi claiming interest on the amount deposited for the period the amount remained in deposit with the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad. The maintainability of the complaint was objected to on the ground that it was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Delhi and on merit, it was pleaded that no interest was payble as specifically mentioned in the application  filed by the complainant.

      District Forum, Delhi relied on the fact that the earnest money was received by the Opposite Party in New Delhi through the Indian Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of that Forum and hence a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Forum and relying on a recent decision of the National Commission (particulars not given) repelled the objection  to the territorial jurisdiction. On merits, the District Forum directed the Opposite Party to pay interest at 7 % p.a. on Rs.2,889/- from 1.4.85 to 30th September, 1992 and also to pay Rs.500/- as costs. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi was dismissed in limine on 29th April, 1994, because the certified copy of the order of the District Forum, Delhi had not been filed and there was delay without proper explanation in filing the appeal.

      The disputes raised in the complaint relates to the alleged failure of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad to pay interest on the earnest money refunded after eight years. The amount of earnest money was initially remitted by the complainant through the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi. Can the complainant say that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi ?

      At the out set, we may state the settled law that a defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, strikes at the very authority of the Forum to pass any order and such an order is a nulity and its invalidity could be set up whenever or wherever it is sought to be enforced. Even though the appeal and the application of condonation of delay were dismissed in limine by the State Commission, we examined the question as it relates to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the District Forum.

      Under Clause (c) of Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is one of the three - alternative grounds for  conferring territorial jurisdiction, the complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within local limits on whose jurisdiction "the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises". It is established on record that the complainant deposited in cash on 18th October, 1984 a sum of Rss.2,889/- with the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi, on account of earnest money with application No.003430 on HUDA account for HUDA Estate, Faridabad. The applications were to be  made and to reach the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad directly or through the branches of the  authorised Banks, (including Indian Bank, south Extension, New Delhi) latest by 19th October, 1984. The mere fact that the Indian Bank, South Extension, New Delhi received the earnest money of Rs.2,889/- in cash from the complainant and remitted it to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, does not mean that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Receipt of the payment by Estate Officer, Faridabad and its non-refund with interest would be a part of cause of action. Supposing the complainant had deposited the money in a Bank and obtained a Bank Draft for the amount or earnest money from a branch of any bank from anywhere in India but payble to Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and had forwarded it alongwith the application to Estate Officer, Faridabad, no part of cause of action could be said to arise at the place from where the bank draft was obtained. The bank acted only as an agent of the complainant in issuing the bank draft. in this case the amount was paid in cash and received by the Indian Bank, New Delhi and remitted to the Estate Officer, HUDA at Faridabad. It was a facility which  was provided but the payment of the earnest money had to be remitted to the Estate Officer, Faridabad either directly by the applicant or through authorised banks. Therefore, no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi.

      This Commission has already taken a similar view in Revision no.163 of 1991, Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sunita Garg decided on 18th March, 1992.

      The result is that the Revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. It will be open to the complainant to pursue his complaint already filed with District Forum, Faridabad. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own respective costs throughout.