Date of filing:- 08/08/2018.

Date of Order:-04/12/2019.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 56 of 2018.

1. Varsha Chapadia, Aged about-41(Forty one)years, wife of Late Amit Chapadia R/O-

Kumar Electronics Mill and Store, Ganesh Bhawan,Ward No.01(one), P.s/P.o/Dist- Bargarh.

2. Srestha Airan aged about 15(fifteen)years, D/o. Late Amit Chapadia,
3. Vivan Airan aged about 19(nineteen)years S/o-Late Amit Chapadia,

            All the Complainants are resident of the places mentioned above against the name of the Complainant No.1(one) and Complainant No.2(two) and No.3(three) both are being minor represented through their Mother/ Guardian and next friend, the Complainant No.1(one).                                                                      .....       .....            .....       Complainants.

-: V e r s u s :-

            State Bank of India, represented through it’s Branch Manager, Bargarh Branch Near Civil Court, At/P.o/P.s/Dist- Bargarh.                                  ....        ....        ....Opposite Party.

            Shyam Sundar Chhapdia, Son of Parashram Chhapdia, aged about 71(seventy one) years, Resident of B.No.71(1), Main Road, Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh (Town), Po/Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                   .....            .....       ....      Proforma Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri S. Panda, Advocate with associate Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :-    Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with Associate Advocates.

For the Proforma Opposite Party:-    Sri S.K.Sahu, Advocate with Associate Advocates.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra       .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee             .....        .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.04/12/2019.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the Case ;-

            The case of the Complainant is that she being the only legal guardian of the Complainant No.2(two) & No.3(three) as their mother guardian have filed the same against the Opposite Party with an allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the following ground.

            The case of the Complainant is that her father-in-law the present proforma Opposite Party had opened three numbers of fixed deposits in the name of his son the deceased husband of the Complainant No.1(one) and the father of the Complainant No.2(two) & No.3(three) while he was a minor namely Amit Chapadia at Kolkotta State Bank of India, in it’s BB Ganguly Street, Ganadhar Babu Lane, Kolkata Branch vide TDR Account No.30579152554, 30579151797 & 30579152098 wherein he himself was the nominee and the same was being renewed from to time.

            In course of time after the birth of the Complainant No.2(two) & No.3(three) their father Amit Chapadia died and after some time the Complainants went to the said branches of Kolkotta and approached there to release the said Accounts of the deceased Amit Chapadia in their favor but the Opposite Party avoided them on different pretext and harassed them hence have filed the case on the ground that such action of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiencies in rendering service and unfair trade practice against them basing on the month of November when the Opposite Party through it’s Branch at Kolkotta avoided in releasing the payment in favor of the Complainant or the proforma Opposite Party and her allegation is that since the Opposite Party is running it’s business at Bargarh also, hence it comes under the Jurisdiction of the Honorable Forum at Bargarh, praying therein to issue a direction to the present Opposite Party to release her claim and also to pay some compensation towards her mental and financial harassment.

            In support of her claim the Complainant have filed the following Documents:-

1. Xerox Copy of the TDR A/C No. 30579152554.
2. Xerox Copy of the TDR A/C No. 30579151797.
3. Xerox Copy of the TDR A/C No. 30579152098.
4. Xerox Copy of the TDR A/C No. 0129200789401.
5. Xerox Copy of the TDR A/C No. 01292007894.
6. Xerox Copy of the TDR A/C No. 0129200789400.
7. Xerox Copy of Account Closure.
8. Xerox copy of closure of Account and transfer of proceeds.

            Having gone through the complaint the documents and on hearing the learned counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum through it’s Advocate and filed it’s version.

            So far the version of the Opposite Party is concerned it is a total denial one to the case of the Complainant having denying it’s maintainability in the present Forum for lack of territorial jurisdiction in addition to that also has denied to have any knowledge of the contents of the complaint and also causing any deficiencies in rendering  service to them and in view of such circumstances has prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case for not having any merit in the same against it.

            Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and on hearing the respective counsels for the parties the following issues have cropped up for proper adjudication of the case such as:-

1. Whether the case is maintainable before the Forum ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief ?

            While dealing with the Issue No.1(one) as to whether the case comes under the jurisdiction of the present Forum, with utmost care we examined the documents and other materials available in the record and also very minutely considered the contention of the respective counsels of the Parties concerned, in due course of argument the learned counsel for the Complainant vehemently placed his view with regard to the point of territorial jurisdiction as that the case has been filed against the Opposite Party Bargarh as because the very State Bank of India is an established Bank having it’s business through out India so also carrying out it’s business at Bargarh and since it is coming under the Jurisdiction of the present Forum as such the cause of action which has arosed there at Kolkotta concerned branch and as it is the duty of the present Opposite Party to inquire in to the case of the Complainant from the concerned branch of Kolkotta and to settle the claim of the Complainant here at it’s Branch at Bargarh and as it has not performed it’s such duty, is liable for deficiencies in rendering service coupled with unfair trade Practice,

            But on the contrary the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party also placed his arguments contending that the present Opposite Party is not at all liable for any action nor have committed any sort of deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant since the allegation against it, is quite beyond it’s knowledge in as much as no prior intimation to the effect was given to it before filing of the case nor was having any knowledge regarding the case prior to receipt of the notice from the Forum. In addition to that also claimed the case having no jurisdiction against it and in view of the fact that it is not an authoritative Branch over the Branch at Kolkotta wherein the cause of action if at all exist to ask for any query or for passing any direction rather the head office of the State Bank of India is the proper party to take care of the case if it has arosed. And also emphasized the position of the status of the business carried out by the Bank as with the instruction and guidance of their head office at Bombay or through it’s regional offices but not by it’s own accord and in view of such circumstances the present Opposite Party has got no role to play nor have any opportunity with it to provide any service hence the case is not maintainable against it and is liable to be dismissed as a fabulous claim against it.

            Having gone through the documents and other materials available in the record and on giving proper wattage to the submission made by the learned counsels for both the parties, it clearly reveals that the Complainant has filed their claim before the branch mentioned in the complaint at Kolkotta and also have alleged that cause of action have arosed therein on the contrary we did not find any scrape of paper with regard to any allegation against the present Opposite Party also it is apparent from the materials available before us that the concerned branch where the transaction was made is a branch office of the State Bank of India having it’s head office at Mumbai so any sort of dispute is to be referred to the head office because the Head office is running it’s business through out the country but not the branch office have any authoritative control over any other branch office nor have any authority to make any rule or to interfere with the activities of any other branch office in such circumstances it was the duty of the Complainant to intimate the cause of action to the head office situated at Mumbai and in case if it is not found to be assertive from their end then they could have filed the case within the jurisdiction of the Kolkotta making the head office of the same as a party .

            In view of such circumstances having giving proper regard to the documents with regard to the said deposits of the Complainant, we are of the view that the claim of the cause of action in filing the case against the State Bank of India is a genuine one but not at Bargarh Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, rather within the Jurisdiction of Kolkotta Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by adding the Head office of the same and the concerned Branch i.e. Branch of State Bank of India at BB Ganguly Street, Ganadhar Babu Lane, Kolkata  under which the cause of action arosed as has been alleged by the Complainant as a necessary Party for proper adjudication of the case. Hence the claim of the Complainant against the present Opposite Party is not maintainable here at this Honorable Forum as such is answered against the Complainant.

            Secondly with regard to the relief as sought for by the Complainant, as we have already discussed at length in our foregoing paragraphs and have opined clearly against the Complainant, now it is obvious on our part to pronounce our view against her.

            Hence the Complaint is dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1 as not maintainable in the present Forum for lack of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Complainant is at liberty to agitate the matter before the proper Forum as per the Act.

            Accordingly the case is dismissed against the present Opposite Party and disposed off being pronounced in the Open forum to-day i.e on Dt. 04.12.2019.

                                                                                                      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                                         and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                                     ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                                                                                                                  P r e s i d e n t.           

                   ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                           M e m b e r (W) 

      Uploaded by

Sri Dusmanta Padhan

Office Assistant, Bargarh.