Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 01-06-2016  passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in C.C. No. 178/2016.

By such Revision, it is stated by the Revisionists that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant is a resident of District Hooghly and is having his Savings Bank account with the Revisionist No. 2, also situated in the District of Hooghly.  Despite this, the Respondent No. 1/Complainant filed the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum which is situated in a different District and thus lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant complaint.  It is further stated that Revisionist No. 1 is the Regional Office of Indian Overseas Bank is not providing any retail banking service to the customer of the bank and it is merely the administrative office of all the branches across the State of West Bengal and hence, the same cannot be equated with the branch office of any company.  According to the Revisionists, the Ld. District Forum erred in invoking proper jurisdiction to adjudicate the complainant and accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Respondent No. 1/Complainant made verbal submission stating inter alia that there was no infirmity with the impugned order and as such, the instant Revision be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Heard the submission made by both sides and perused the material on record.  The dispute, as it appears, revolves over the fact whether the Ld. District Forum enjoy territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant complaint, or not.

Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulates jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum as under:

“A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”. 

In this context, it is argued by the Revisionists that the Revisionist No. 1 cannot be equated with that of a “branch office” because it does not carry out any retail banking service to customers.  On the other hand, the Revisionist No. 2 being situated at a different district vis-à-vis the Ld. District Forum, the present dispute is not maintainable before the Ld. District Forum.

We do agree with the contention of the Revisionists that the Ld. District Forum does not have proper territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute concerning the Revisionist No. 2.  However, let us see whether this is applicable in respect of the Revisionist No. 1 too, or not.  Differently put, whether the Revisionist No. 1 can be described as a ‘branch office’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(aa) of the 1986 Act, or not.  For better illustration, the relevant Section is appended hereunder.

According to this Section, "branch office" means—

(i)  any establishment described as a branch by the opposite party;  or

(ii)   any establishment carrying on either the same or substan­tially the same activity as that carried on by the head office of the establishment” 

            It is admitted by the Revisionists that Regional Office and/or Central Office of the Bank deals with with policymaking, administrative work  and monitors the functioning of all the branches covered under the particular Regional Office.  No doubt, a plain reading of the nature of work as described in Page No. 11 of the Memo of Appeal makes it abundantly clear that the Revisionist No. 1 is more or less doing the same activities as is done by the Head Office of any Institution.  Thus, in terms of Sec. 2(1)(aa)(ii) of the 1986 Act, the Revisionist No. 1 perfectly fits into the bill to that of a  “branch Office”. 

That being the discernable position, we are completely in sync with the findings of the Ld. District Forum that the maintainability petition moved by the Revisionists was deficient of any merit in the eye of law.  Quite naturally, therefore, by rejecting the maintainability petition dated 02-05-2016 moved by the Revisionists, the Ld. District Forum committed no illegality or infirmity.

The revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Impugned order dated 01-06-2016 is hereby confirmed.

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 31-05-2017 for adjudication of the dispute purely on merit.