ORDER

Paramjit Singh, President

1. Dr. Rajiv Dhir another complainants have filed the present complaint on 5.4.2010 in this Forum against Desh Bhagat Dental College & Hospital, Kot Kapura Road, Muktsar, through its Chairman.

2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party

-2-

The opposite party received the notice and authorized S. Kuldeep Singh Thakur Office Assistant to appear in this Forum on behalf of the opposite party and the opposite party moved an application for the dismissal of this complaint on the question of territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint by this Forum on 20.4.2010. Notice of the application was given to the complainants and they filed their detailed reply on 5.5.2010 and the arguments were heard on the application.

3. The counsel for the complainants argues that the complainants made the payment of Rs.49,000/- vide transfer entry dated 5.9.2009 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Kapurthala from Kapurthla. So due to this reason, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. In their reply, the complainants have relied upon an authority titled as Sunita Garg Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority 1993 (2) CLT 180 (i) UT. In this case of Sunita Garg, the opposite party authorized Vijaya Bank, Chandigarh to receive the payment on their behalf from all the applicants belonging to all the cities. In the present case, the opposite party, Desh Bhagat Dental College & Hospital, Kot Kapura Road, Muktsar, never authorized State Bank of Patiala, Kapurthala Branch to collect the payment from the students on their behalf and the opposite party has drawn our attention to an authority of Hon’ble Apex Court cited as IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) titled as Sonik Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, in which it was held as under:-

"The fire broke out in Godown at Ambala

-3-

Insurance Policy taken at Ambala.

Compensation claim made at Ambala.

So the Consumer Commission of Union

Territory at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction

to entertain and adjudicate the complaint

only on this ground that the Branch office

of the Insurance Company was at Chandigarh."

In this authority, it was held that the complint can only be filed where the branch office of the insurance company or the bank where actual cause of action arose is situated.

In the present case, the branch office of the bank is situated at Kapurthala and there is no evidence on the file that the opposite party had authorized State Bank of Patiala, Kapurthala to collect the payment on their behalf.

If the contention of the learned counsel for the complainants is accepted, it will mean that if a cause of action has arosen at Kapurthala, then the complaint can be filed in any city of the country that where the branches of State Bank of Patiala are situated. In such case, the complainants can file the complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Ghuhati, where the branche office of State Bank of Patiala is situated.

So we cannot accept the contention of learned counsel for the complainants that this Forum has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint because the payment was deposited by the complainants in the branch of State Bank of Patiala, at Kapurthala and specially when this bank was not specifically authorized by the

-4-

opposite party to collect the payment on their behalf. So with these observations, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated: Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

5.5.2010 Member President