11.09.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The present Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Complainant challenging the judgment and order No. 2 dated 5.5.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly in Complaint Case No. 87 of 2014, refusing to entertain the Complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum concerned.

          Facts of the case leading to the present controversy are, in short, that the Appellant’s/Complainant’s husband, since deceased, had with the Central Bank of India, Barrackpore Branch a Savings Bank Account (No. 1536122434) jointly with his mother and, Term Deposits (Nos. 3036742688, 3036742757, 30367427802 and 3036742848 @ Rs. 48,000/- each in the name of Miss Chandrika Kumari Kar and No. 3036743046 for Rs. 24,000/- and Nos. 3236742917, 3036742951 and 3036742973 @ Rs. 48,000/- each in the name of Miss Rameka Kar) with standing instruction of crediting the interest quarterly in the said S.B. Account.  After the sad demise of both the husband and the mother of the husband of the Appellant/Complainant, the Appellant/Complainant, by an application dt. 13.7.2012, requested the Branch Manager of the Barrackpore Branch of the concerned Bank, being the Respondent No. 1/OP No.1,  to ‘pay’ the due balance amount related to the said Term Deposit Accounts in the said S.B.Account.  Also, the Appellant/ Complainant, by another letter dt. 27.2.2013, claimed the maturity amount of all the said Term Deposits, submitting all the original Deposit Receipts and other relevant documents in support of the claim of the Appellant/Complainant, but without any success for a pretty long time even after vigorous persuasion by the Appellant/ Complainant upto the Chief Grievance Officer and the General Manager (Opeation) of the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1-Branch of the concerned Bank.  Meanwhile, the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1-Branch renewed and/or re-issued on 5.9.2013 the said Term Deposits ‘at their discretion’ and the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1-Branch, without any specific instruction from the account-holders,  transferred the said Term Deposit Accounts to the Chandannagar Branch, being the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 herein, of the Bank concerned as averred in the Petition of Complaint. 

In the Petition of Complaint it is further alleged that the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1-Branch did not issue TDS in the name of the husband of the Appellant/Complainant, but the same was issued  in the name of the minor daughters of the deceased husband.  Ultimately, the Respondent/ OP-Bank settled the Savings Bank Account of the deceased husband of the Appellant/Complainant on 24.10.2013 against the Complaint dated 13.7.2012 when by a letter of even date the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1-Branch was requested to settle the accounts in question. 

With this factual background, the Appellant/Complainant moved the Ld. District Forum which passed the order impugned refusing to entertain the Complaint concerned on the ground of its lack of territorial jurisdiction as noted at the outset.  Dissatisfied with such order the Complainant preferred the present Appeal.

          The authorized representative  for the Appellant/Complainant submits in the very beginning that the Ld. District Forum erred in law as well as in fact in refusing to entertain the Complaint concerned showing the ground of lack of its territorial jurisdiction, although a part of the cause of action of the Appellant/Complainant took place at the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2-Branch, i.e. Chandannagar Branch, Hooghly, wherefrom the Appellant/Complainant received back the Term Deposit Receipts in question, after opening the Savings Bank Account bearing No. 3297585205 with the Chandannagar Branch, where the Term Deposit Receipts in question were transferred by the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1-Branch at their own discretion.

          The authorized representative continues that Chandannagar Branch and the Barrackpore Branch are the branches of one and the same Bank concerned being a single legal entity, i.e. Central Bank of India, and both the branches used to perform similar functions, and thus the Chandannagar Branch squarely falls within the definition of ‘Branch Office’, as defined u/s 2(1)(aa) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of Central Bank of India.

          The authorized representative further submits that thus as per provisions of Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which lays down that a Complaint may be filed with the Ld. District Forum under the territorial jurisdiction of which at least a part of cause of action takes place,  as was in the instant case where the Term Deposits were transferred by the Barrackpore Branch to Chandannagar Branch of the identical Bank concerned which handed over the said Term Deposit Receipts to the Appellant/Complainant, indicating thereby the nexus of or relevance to the Chandannagar Branch of the identical Bank with the controversy concerned.

          The authorized representative finally submits that in view of the aforesaid submission, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside and the Complaint be restored and remanded to the Ld. District Forum concerned for adjudication thereof afresh on merits.

          On the other hand, the Ld. Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/OP Nos. 1 & 2 submit that as most of the actions, starting from opening of the accounts in question to the lodging of the Complaint regarding deficiency in service, if any, took  place at Barrackpore Branch, North 24 Parganas, so the Ld. District Forum concerned rightly refused to entertain the Complaint on the ground of lack of its territorial jurisdiction.

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that in view of the submission so put forward, the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.

          We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and perused the materials on records including the copies of the Term Deposit Receipts.

Materials on records, particularly the Term Deposit Receipts in question,  bearing Numbers from N 373801 to N 373808, exhibit thereon the seal of the Chandannagar Branch, being the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2, indicating thereby that the cause of action, at least in part, of the Complaint Case concerned took place at the Chandannagar Branch, Hooghly being a branch-office of the same legal entity and hence, such accrual of cause of action in part, which had close nexus with the controversy in the case, confers territorial jurisdiction upon the Ld. District Forum concerned as per provisions of Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case lead us to hold that the Ld. District Forum erred both in law and in fact in refusing to entertain the Complaint showing the ground of lack of its territorial jurisdiction and hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside  and the case be remanded to the Ld. District Forum concerned for adjudication of the same afresh on merits and in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order stands set aside.  The case is remanded to the Ld. District Forum for adjudication afresh on merits and as per law.

All the parties shall appear before the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly on 28.09.2015.