O R D E R SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT: The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint against the Ops in brief is, that he has obtained a credit card during the year 2000 and has honoured all payments due under it. That he was offered a personal loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs by the Ops at 9% interest p.a repayable in monthly installment but he availed loan of Rs.85,000/- on 04/04/2005. On 17/04/2005 he received account statement and found an amount of Rs.1,658/- was debited to his account towards draft charges and Rs.1,169/- towards service tax but he never agreed to pay those amounts. That he then complained to the Ops about this illegal charge and requested to reverse them. That he on 28/04/2005 paid those charges with installments six days in advance to the due date. He received second statement on 18/05/2005 in which Ops had charged Rs.350/- towards late payment fees. Though he had paid the installment six days in advance, there is illegal debiting of Rs.668/- to his account and on his representation it was reversed. That he after paying few installments towards discharge of loan with interest was found due Rs.83,865/- and he paid that entire amount towards pre-closure on 03/06/2005 by also returning his credit card. Again on 14/08/2008 a representative of the Ops as recovery agent went to his residence demanding credit due amount, then he explained to him regarding pre-closure of the loan account and also gave letter to this effect to the Ops and requested them to rectify their mistakes but Ops sent evasive replies claiming Rs.4,263/-. Again he received a statement of 15/04/2009 showing debit balance of Rs.7005.28 though he has settled entire claim. He further alleged that Ops have debited him illegal charges which he is not liable to pay and therefore has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for his mental agony, for the illegal action of the Ops and Rs.5.00 lakhs for showing him as defaulter with cost. The first Op through his advocate has filed version claiming to be the version of both parties. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. It is barred by limitation and it is Chennai Forum, has jurisdiction and elaborated that complainant had availed loan from Op No.1 at Chennai. All the correspondences are made between the complainant and the first opponent from Chennai, statements are issued by Op No.1, payments are made by the complainant to Op No.1 and absolutely there is no transaction between the complainant and Op No.2 and complainant is also not the resident of Bangalore but has filed this complaint before this forum which is not maintainable. It is further contended that Op No.1 is functioning as schedule bank offering credits to its consumers as per the rules and regulations and is charging consumers for interest and other charges on their committing default in re-payment of the loan. Admitting to had advanced loan by Op No.1 has stated that the rate of interest was agreed at Rs.16% p.a and did not agree to give up all the late payment charges, service charges etc., However, considering the request of the complainant certain claims were reversed and still found that the complainant as on 03/06/2005 was due of Rs.4,263.77 that remitting of Rs.83,865/- towards pre-closure of loan is unilateral and further denying all other allegations of the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Babu Puttanna for Ops have filed their affidavit evidence re-producing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of certain statements sent to him by Op No.1, copy of the letter he had addressed to Business Manager of Op No.1, Chennai, copy of receipt for having paid Rs.83,865/- to a bank at Coimbatore, copy of his account statement, copy of letter he had addressed to Manager of Op No.1, Chennai, copy of legal notice he got issued to Op No.1 at Chennai and copies of certain letters addressed by Op No.1 to the complainant. Ops have not produced any documents. Complainant at the later stage produced the original documents. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the Ops has filed written arguments. On considering materials placed before us, hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and on going through the written arguments of counsel for the OP following points for determination arise. 1. Whether the opponents prove that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 2. To what Order ? Point No.1 : In the affirmative Point No.2 : see the final order. Answer on point No.1: The opponents have raised a vital objection regarding maintainability of this complaint before this forum by contending that the complainant had availed credit card and loan from Op No.1 at Chennai. All the correspondences, payment and statements are originated from Op No.1 and that complainant is also a resident of Chennai. But without any cause of action filed this complaint before this forum and the same is not maintainable. Since this contention, questions the authority of this forum to decide the dispute, we shall have to take up that issue to find out whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As could be found from the complainant allegations and affidavit evidence filed by complainant, the complainant appears to have adopted a dubious method in filing this complaint before this forum by suppressing the material facts. That is to say the complainant very intelligently has nowhere stated from which Op he obtained credit card, from which Op he borrowed a loan, to whom he had repaid the money, from which Op he has received credit statements and the correspondence that he made, demands and letters he received. Suppression of these facts the complainant undoubtedly reflects on the conduct of the complainant in presenting this complaint before this forum. As these facts are silent from the complaint and affidavit evidence of the complainant we shall refer to his documents. The complainant has produced certain statements he received from Op No.1 and we didn’t find any demands made by Op No.2 or reference to that Op. Then the complainant himself on 03/06/2006 addressed a letter to the Business Manager of Op No.1 giving details of the loan offered to him, loan availed by him, the conditions of repayment mentioned, about the rate of interest etc., and this correspondence was made with Op No.1 only. Again the complainant admittedly has paid Rs.83,865/- towards pre-closure of his loan account to the credit of Op No.1 in a bank near Coimbatore. He had issued cheque for payment of that amount of his bank situated in Tiruchanapalli. Complainant addressed another letter on 15/08/2009 to the Manager of Op No.1, Chennai. He also got issued legal notice on 24/09/2008 to Op No.1 only. Then the first Op from Chennai had sent a letter to the complainant to Tiruchi claiming the out standing amount. Similarly, Op No.1 sent two more letters to the complainant to his Tiruchi Address. The Ops not only in their version but also in their affidavit evidence have categorically stated that this complainant had no transaction whatsoever with Op No.2 and all the transactions have taken place in between the complainant and first Op therefore this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They have also further stated that the complainant is also not a resident of Bangalore and is resident of Tamil Nadu. As evident from the complaint filed by the complainant he has given his address as C/o. Induslnd Bank Ltd., Bull Temple Road, Bangalore. These contentions of the Ops are not rebutted by the complainant in his evidence or by filing any reply. Thus the stand of the Ops that the complainant never had any transaction with Op No.2 and this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint stands proved and therefore we hold that the complaint filed by this complaint suppressing all facts before this forum is not maintainable and is silence in not refuting those contentions of the Ops further strengthens the objections of the Ops regarding maintainability of this complaint. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act speaks about jurisdiction of the District Forum and provides for filing a complaint before a district forum within whose local limits or jurisdiction, cause of action arose or where all the ops or one of them resides or carries on business. But mere fact that Op No.1 is having a branch in Bangalore itself do not confer power to the complainant to file a complaint before this forum when absolutely he did not have any contact or transactions with Op No.2. Therefore, the complainant if at all intends to file a complaint before the forum where the first Op is carrying on his business. In this regard we rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in CTJ II (SC) (CP) Pg 2 between Soni Surgical V/s National Insurance Company Ltd., and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is dismissed holding that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, with cost of Rs.1,000/- payable by the complainant to the first Op. Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 29th March 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT