J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case in brief is that she is the sole proprietor of M/s. Sarkar Auto Parts, and it is her only source of income to maintain her family. The complainant avails a cash credit facility from the OPs for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, and cash credit account was opened in the name of M/s.
Contd........P/2
-:2:-
Sarkar Auto Parts. On 10.05.2010 Rs.1,324/- was debited from the complainant’s account for paying insurance premium, and subsequently the OPs debited further sums as insurance premium. Later, at the suggestion of the OPs, the complainant enhanced the cash credit facility to Rs.4,00,000/-, and opened a new account in the name of M/s. Sarkar Auto Parts. On 10.10.2012, the OPs debited Rs.1,573/- on account of insurance premium. Sometime during the night of 12th & 13th October, 2013 a theft took place in the shop of the complainant, and the complainant informed the police about the matter, and he went to the office of the OPs on 14.10.2013, and asked for the policy, and she was asked to come again on 15.10.2013. When she received the copy of the policy, she was astonished to see that the latest insurance was from 10.10.2012 to 09.10.2013, and she was also informed that the OPs did not renew the policy, though she was under the impression that it had been renewed. The complainant submitted as written representation to the Proforma OP on 15.10.2013, but she was informed that the OPs had no liability since the shop was not insured as on the date of theft. The complainant claims that the OP/bank failed and neglected to renew the insurance policy, and though she served notice to the OP bank through her ld advocate praying of settlement of her claim yet, the bank did not respond. The complainant thus filed this case praying that the OPs be directed to pay her Rs.1,20,000/- being the price of the goods stolen from her shop, together with Rs.45,000/-, which was stolen from the cash box, and she prays for some other reliefs as well.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant. It is case of the OP Nos.1 & 2 that the claimant petitioner has not locus standi to file the petition against the OPs. It is further stated that without consent of the borrower the bank cannot debit the account of the borrower in a general cases. The policy amount depends upon the quality of stocks and in normal cases unless and until borrower furnish the stock statement and request for deduction of the account for payment of the policy premium, the bank cannot deduct the same and insured the stock. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2. Accordingly, it is prayed that the case should be dismissed.
The Proforma OP No.3 has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant. It is contended that the complainant has no locus standi to this case against the Proforma OP No.3. There was no insurance policy of the property during the intervening period of
Contd........P/3
-:3:-
09.10.2013 to 15.10.2013. The property of the complainant remained uninsured and the Proforma OP No.3 is not liable under either of the policies referred to above. The Proforma OP No.3 did not receive any insurance premium for the said period for which there is no liability of the Proforma OP No.3 in this case. The complainant has not claimed any money from The Proforma OP No.3 as there was no insurance policy of the property in question for the period 09.10.2013 to 15.10.2013. Accordingly, the case against the Proforma OP No.3 should be dismissed.
Points for decision
1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case ?
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Point No.1.
It is contended by the OP Nos.1 & 2 that the cause title of the petition, the OP Nos.1 & 2 carry business under the branch situated under Jalpaiguri District. So, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this carry. On this point, Proforma OP No.3 and the complainant remain silent. In written notes of argument, there is not whisper of the complainant.
Perused the Notification No.2906-CA/ESTT/O/5C-17/13 dated 07.10.2015 of the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal, which runs as follows :-
“In exercise of the power conferred by section 9 of the Consumer Protection At, 1986 and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Governor is hereby pleased to prescribe for the purposes of the said Act that the local limits u/s 11 of the Act ibid of District Forum, as specified in column 2 of the table below, shall include the areas as mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 3 of the table below”.
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. | Name of the District Forum | Limits and Jurisdiction |
1 | 2 | 3 |
1. | Siliguri | All the Police Stations in the Siliguri Sub-Division under Darjeeling District. |
Contd........P/4
-:4:-
Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-
(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 [carried 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.
Accordingly, the case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In this case, the complainant and other parties have adduced evidence and advanced argument. But, it appears from Notification as well as expressed law regarding territorial jurisdiction, it is seen that this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass judgement. The complainant has approached the Forum with some allegations against OP Nos.1 & 2. The complainant has tried to bring this case within jurisdiction of this Forum by impleading OP No.3 as Proforma OP No.3 which is coloured only to bring this case within this jurisdiction.
We are not discussing the case on merit as this Forum has no jurisdiction.
The complainant is at liberty to file this case before the appropriate Forum.
The limitation period shall begin to run from this date.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complainant shall withdraw the case and file the same before the appropriate Forum.
Accordingly, the case is disposed off.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -Member- -President-
