Delhi

East Delhi

CC/346/2016

PANKAJ AGG - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ CAPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 346/2016

 

1.       2.	Pankaj Aggarwal R/o. C-41/Z-2, C-Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.   Preeti Aggarwal R/o. C-41/Z-2, C-Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.	….Complainant 1       ….Complainant 2
Versus
1.       2.	Sameer Gaur Director-J.P. Infratech Limted, A-9/27, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.   Bajaj Capital Bajaj House, 97, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.   Also At:- Branch Office   Bajaj Capital No. G14, Plot No. 17, Sachdeva Tower, Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi-92. Near HDFC Bank	……OP1       ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 14.07.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 18.08.2023

Judgment Passed on: 18.08.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainants alleging deficiency in not returning the amount of the FDR deposited with OP1 through its agent i.e. OP2.

1. Before coming to the facts it is matter of record that initially the address of OP2 was mentioned as 97 Nehru Place, New Delhi which was amended to A-9/27, Vasant Vihar, Delhi subsequently, and therefore the cause title of the matter shows that the name & address of parties, as per amended memo of parties dated 20.09.16.
2. Brief facts stated by the complainants in the complaint are that they both invested the Rs. 40,000/- with OP1 through OP2 i.e. Rs. 20,000/- (each of the complainant) for period of three years, the maturity amount was Rs. 40,000/- and when the FDRs were matured in the year 2015, the amount was not returned and as such the complainant has filed the present complaint, thereby asking the OP to refund the amount of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/-, damages as Rs. 15000/- and litigation charges Rs. 10000/-.
3. OP1 has filed its reply stating that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as OP had been regularly returning the amount of all the customers but somehow after the coming of amendment in Company Act in 2013 OP had not been accepting fresh deposits but was continuing only repaying the amount, already invested by the investor with them. It is further stated in this matter OP1 has already made repayment to the complainant vide its letter dated 31.03.2016 i.e. with respect to FDR No. 36548 Vide Cheque No. 507865 and FDR amount of Rs. 36547 was returned with interest dated 16.07.16, and otherwise all the facts of the complaint are denied.
4. OP2 has filed its written statement thereby taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against OP2 as he was only an agent for OP1, the amount was given to OP1 who issued the certificate of deposit. This Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, complainants are not consumers as the transaction was for commercial purpose as admitted by the complainants and complainants have no locus stand to file the complaint and also taken various other objections but in nut-shell it has relied upon the plea that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
5.  Complainants have filed rejoinder to the written statement of both the OPs & have admitted that they have received the amount but simultaneously submitted that the amount has been received after much delay for which the complainant are entitled for an interest alongwith compensation. Complainant’s and both the parties have filed their respective evidence. The Commission has perused the record.
6. Before coming to the merits of the case which now is only relates to the interest part on the delayed payment. The first issue which this Commission has to decide is w.r.t territorial jurisdiction. It has been held in catena of judgment that the issue w.r.t. the jurisdiction is germane to the proceeding and  only if the Commission has the jurisdiction then it may go to decide the matter on merit, and not otherwise. Complainant resides in Dilshad Garden which falls within the North-East District, OP1 is having its office in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and OP2 has his office at Nehru Place. Therefore prima-facie the OPs are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has mentioned in the written arg. that since one of the branch office of OP is in Karkardooma therefore this Commission has territorial jurisdiction. This contention of the complainant is not well found.

Further the issue w.r.t. branch office is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 1560/2004 in a case titled Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Wherein it has been held as-

 

“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.  In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh”.

 

it was inter alia held as follows:   

 

Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. 

 

The jurisdiction is the factor that gives the court an authority to deal with a particular case.  If the Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide a particular complaint then it does not have the power to pass any other order in respect of issue involved.  Jurisdiction is germane to the judicial hierarchical system and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity.  In this regard, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pundalik Haribhau Chandekar v. Jagdish Dadaji Bind (supra) which order was although on the aspect of condonation of delay yet the court had held & laid down that delay cannot be condoned if the court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint.  This seems quite logical also that a court which does not have jurisdiction over a particular matter cannot pass any order on any aspect of that matter.

8. By having mere branch office would not create territorial jurisdiction until & unless some cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant on account of that branch office. Therefore keeping in view of the judgment, this Commission is of the opinion that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Therefore complaint is ordered to be returned to complainant. Other issues with respect to that OP2 was merely an agent or OP, has already returned the amount or the complainant is entitled to interest for delayed period or not, are the facts which can only be adjudicated upon once this Commission has been vested with jurisdiction but since court has held that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, the complainant is ordered to be returned to complainant with the liberty to proceed as per law.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 18.08.2023.