Haryana

Ambala

CC/173/2014

SHUCHI GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DENA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ADIT AGGARWAL

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No.    : 173 of 2014

Date of Institution       : 14.07.2014

Date of Decision         : 08.09.2017

Shuchi Goyal D/o Sh. Parveen Tayal, R/o 38-E, Rani Bagh, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.                                                                      

……Complainant.

Versus

1.         Dena Bank, 6330, Punjab Mohalla, Ambala Cantt, through GM.

2.         Dena Bank, Dena corporate Centre, C-10, G-Block, Bandra-kurla complex ,           Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 through it’s MD/Chairman Sh. Ashwani Kumar.

3.         Dena Bank, Chandkhera Branch, Marti Nandan Complex, Opp. AMTS Bus             Stop, Ahmedabad, Gujrat, through GM.

 

                                                                                    ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA,  PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                       

Present:          Sh. Adit Aggarwal, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. P.K. Bansal, counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the present complaint is maintainable as a saving bank account NO.010010027614 with the OPs Bank and on 26.03.2014, when the complainant got updated her bank account passbook from OP No.1 and she came to know that on 10.12.2013 a duplicate passbook has been issued from her bank account and she has been charged Rs.57 for the same. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the complainant requested the OPs to issue any duplicate passbook nor the respondent issued any duplicate passbook to her. Further submitted that on same date i.e. 26.03.2014 the complainant complained about it to the OP NO.2 through E-mail and the complainant, through her E-mails, insisted that she had not applied for issuance of any duplicate passbook and further requested that a copy of the application submitted to OP NO.3 for issuance of duplicate passbook, be sent to her. The OP No.3, through its e-mail dated 31.03.2014 intimated that they were unable to find the application for issuing duplicate passbook and offered to reverse the charges of Rs.57 in the account of the complainant and this itself is sufficient to prove the guilty intentions of the Ops. Further submitted that OP No.2  mala-fidely and malignly issued duplicate passbook of the saving bank account of the complainant to some unauthorized outsider and had charged for it from the complainant and when she complained about it, the OP started making lame excuses for the same. Further submitted that the said issuing of duplicate passbook and the OPs indifferent behavior towards it is gross deficiency on their part in providing banking services to the complainant and is against the banking rules and ethics and the OPs fail to maintain the quality of the services required to the maintained by them. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the present complaint by filing their separate written statements. OP No.1 in his written statement submitted that the complainant is maintaining a saving Bank account No.010010027614 with the OP No.2 and 3 Bank Branch at relief Road Branch, Ahemdabad, Gujrat where the complainant has maintaining the account and not maintaining the account in Ambala Cantt; so no cause of action arose in Ambala Cantt. Further submitted that Sh. P.K. Goyal father in law of Smt. Shuchi Goyal, Ahemdabad, Gujrat and P.K. Goyal requested for passbook of account of Shuchi Goyal D/o Sh. Parveen Tayal bearing NO.010010027614 and on his request, a passbook was issued to him at Chandkhera Branch, Ahemdabad, Gurjrat. So, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                        On the other hand, OP No.2 and 3 in their written statement submitted that father in law of complainant Sh. P.K. Goyal visited the bank at Chandkhera Branch, Ahemdabad, Gujrat and requested for passbook of account of Shuchi Goyal D/o Sh. Parveen Tayal  bearing 010010027614 as Shuchi Goyal is out of station. On his request, a passbook was issued to him but when the matter was raised by the complainant that Chief Manager of Chandkhera Branch inquired to Mr. P.K. Goyal, who immediately returned the passbook to the bank stating himself to be responsible guardian of the family who is working as Deputy General manager Production in ONGC, Ahemdabad. Moreover, address of the complainant and P.K. Goyal was found same in the bank record and the complainant cannot say that Sh. P.K. Goyal is unknown person and the OP bank was under bona-fide belief that being the close relative of the complainant i.e. father in law of the complainant and to provide better customer service, branch/OP has issued him passbook by debiting the required charges from the account. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that after issuing the new passbook, no transaction took place in her account and thereby no loss occurred to the complainant in any manner. It is submitted that Sh. P.K. Goyal is father in law of the complainant approached the bank for issuing duplicate passbook, however, he has not operated the same and charges amounting to Rs.57/- has been debited from your account. So that there is no malafide intention of the bank issuing passbook and OPs has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. Counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavits Annexure RX &                R-Y alongwith document as annexure R-1 and close his evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. At the very outset, the first and foremost question arises before us for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant or not?.

                        Counsel for OPs has vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present complaint.  Counsel for OPs argued that the complainant is maintaining her saving bank account No.010010027614 at Relief Road Branch Ahemdabad as party in the present complaint only to circumvent the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Counsel for OP has further argued that there is no cause of action arises at Ambala.  So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. In support of his case, counsel for Ops has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. The counsel also emphasized on Section 11(2) (a)(b) (c) of Consumer Protection Act.   The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company case (supra) is as under:-

“Incidence of fire in the appellant’s godown at Ambala-complaint claiming compensation from the respondent allowed by the State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh-National Commission set aside the said order accepting the  appeal of the respondent on the ground that the State Commission, Union Territory had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint-Hence, the present appeal-Admittedly no cause of action arose at Chandigarh-Insurance Policy taken at Ambala, Fire broke out in the godown at Ambala and the claim for compensation also made at Ambala-Cause of action arose in1999 and the complaint regarding the same filed in 2000- Amendement to Section 17(2) not to apply as the amended Section came into force with effect from 15.03.2003- Contention that the respondent-insurance company having a branch office at Chandigarh, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh under the amended Section 17(2) rejected as unacceptable-It would have led to absurd consequences of bench hunting, meaning thereby that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a complaint in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India- cause of action having arisen at Ambala, the State Commission, Haryana alone to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-impugned  order of the National Commission agreed with-Appeal dismissed.

                        On the other hand, counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant is residing of District Ambala as such, this Hon’ble Forum has very much jurisdiction to entertain & try the present complaint and OP No.1 is also a branch of Allahabad Bank and therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. In support of their contention, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case laws delivered by Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressasl Commission, Chandigarh tilted Kurukshetra University & Ors. Vs. Vinay Parkash Verma reported in II(1993) CPJ-647 Pg. 647 wherein held that : “The objection to territorial jurisdiction is a threshold  question which if not seriously pressed is deemed to be waived. It bears repetition and the record is witness thereto, that though fully represented by counsel, the appellant-university did not press the territorial jurisdiction at the threshold before entering into the merits of the lis. Apart from taking the plea in its pleadings, the university-appellants did not seek the determination of the question from the District Forum at the very portals  of the consumer jurisdiction as a preliminary one. As the order under appeal indicates the question seems to have been  raised only at the stage of concluding arguments and it has been so noticed expressly in para 9 thereof. It appears to us that they willingly participated in the trial of the summary consumer lis and it would be  inappropriate that the  order under appeal should be set aside on this ground after it has turned against the appellants on merits” and has placed reliance on case laws delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Delhi in case title Laxman Prasad Vs. Progigy Electronics Ltd. & anr. 2008(1) CCC 512 (S.C.).

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear that there is nothing on the case file to show that the complainant had ever made any transaction with the Allahabad Bank Branch situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Mere, residing of the complainant at Ambala does not create any jurisdiction. So, there is no cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of Forum at Ambala. We have gone through the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Sonic Surgical (supra) and same is fully covered the present case. So, we are of considered view that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint, thus we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised provided the complainant may approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  The period during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum is exempted for the purpose of limitation in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC Pg.583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON:08.09.2017                                                (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER

 

                                                           

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                            MEMBER