Punjab

Sangrur

CC/358/2017

Sourabh Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Goyal

28 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                  

                                               Complaint No.  358

                                                Instituted on:    25.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       28.12.2017

 

Sourabh Singla S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Singla R/O House No. B-2/106, Delhi Mandir Street, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Axis Bank, Branch Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             Regional Manager, AXIS Bank (Loan Deptt.) First Floor, Chotti Baradari, Patiala.

3.             Axis Bank, Head Office, 131, Maker Tower-F, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai through its MD/CEO.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sourabh Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by getting his car bearing registration number PB-13-AF-9007 financed vide agreement number AURO19500693888 in the year 2013 for the loan amount of Rs.5,26,500/-, which was to be repayable in 48 instalments of Rs.13,544/- each.  Further case of the complainant is that after sanction of the loan, one saving account bearing account number 913010024206400 was opened at Sangrur branch of the OPs and it was conveyed to the complainant to deposit the monthly instalment in the saving account on or before 15^th of every month and the Ops also took cheques from the complainant on account of security.  Further case of the complainant is that he deposited all the instalments during the loan tenure on or before 15^th of every month in his saving account except one instalment for the month of February, 2015. Now, the grievance of the complainant is that on completion of the loan term, the complainant visited the OPs and requested to issue no due certificate, so that he may get the note of hypothecation removed from the RC, but he was shocked to listen that an amount of Rs.15,107/- is still outstanding against him on account of over due charges and cheque bouncing charges, which are said to be totally wrong and illegal.  Though the complainant got served a legal notice dated 7.7.2017 upon the OPs, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to  clear the loan account and to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.15,107/- and further to issue no due certificate and to return the security cheques to the complainant and also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is not in its proper form, that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. It is stated further that the complainant has availed the loan from the OPs and it is further stated that the complainant in order to discharge his liability, issued one cheque of Rs.15,107/- on 1.7.2017, which was dishonoured and owing to this act of the complainant, a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala.  On merits, the granting of loan to the complainant has been admitted, however, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs  has produced  Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/7 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by raising the loan for the purchase of the car in question.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though he has repaid the whole of the loan amount in instalments to the Ops, but still the OPs are not issuing the no due certificate to the complainant, which is required for removal of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the vehicle.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the car loan agreement was entered into between the parties at Patiala and not at Sangrur, which fact is also evident from the copy of power drive – car loan documentation.  A bare perusal of the loan agreement clearly reveals that it took place at Patiala.  It is worth mentioning here that since the agreement in question was entered into between the parties at Patiala, as such, we feel that this Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction.

 

 

6.             Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read as under:-

Jurisdiction of the District Forum (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

 

(2)            A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

 

(3)            the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of 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 clause 11(2)(a) and (b), the words used are ‘at the time of institution of the complaint’. Whatsoever happened before the ‘institution of the complaint’ is immaterial. There is no pleading that at the time of institution of the present complaint, the OPs were carrying on business or had branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. There is no pleading in the complaint that cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.       Further we may mention that the complainant has miserably failed to establish that any cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant only on the ground that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court of law, if he so desired. 

 

8.              A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                December 28, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member