DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 128/2018
No. DF/ Central/
Shri Rakesh Sabharwal,
S/o Late Shri S.L. Sabharwal,
R/o 15/30A 4th Floor,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
The Manager
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Head Office
8 A, Milap Niketan BSZ Marg,
I.T.O, New Delhi – 110002
Also at :-
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
B – 1, Community Centre,
Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058
Regd Office :-
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
HDFC Bank House,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400013
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging therein that on the occasion of Diwali on 17/10/2017 OP sent an sms on mobile no. 991141186 of the complainant and offered to give Jambo Loan of Rs. 5,95,000/- on his HDFC Credit Card and also offered that EMI is going to be Rs. 13,783/- for 48 months which will be auto debited from savings account of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant accepted the offer and sum of Rs. 5,95,000/- was credited in his account against Jumbo Loan account No. 00000000031235539 on 19/10/2017. It is further alleged that after crediting the above said account in his account he started receiving messages from OP that EMI is for 60 months tenure to which the complainant immediately replied vide an e-mail on 22/10/2017 requesting them to reschedule the loan according to the offer given in SMS dated 17/10/2017.
Complainant further pleaded that he sent e-mails to the OP on 25/10/2017 and 01/11/2017 intimating that he had already spent Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) out of Rs. 5,95,000/- and requested to take back Rs. 4 Lacs and make fresh EMI for the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs on prorate basis but the OP refused to accede to the request of the complainant.
In response to the email dated 01/11/2017 of the complainant OP sent the following email :
‘‘We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused to you in this regard. We observe that the SMS has been sentinadvertently to some of our customer. We wish to inform you that the EMI amount mentioned in the SMS is for 60 months tenure and not for 48 months
In case you wish to change the tenure to 48 months
the monthly EMI value will also be modified’’.
It is further stated that the complainant accepted the offer of OP on the basis of SMS dated 17/10/2017. Complainant sent legal notice dated 12/02/2018 and reply dated 28/03/2018 in response to the legal notice was received by the complainant on 26/02/2018 from OP.
The complainant prayed that OP be directed to withdraw its SMS dated 22/10/2017 in which OP increased the installments from 48 to 60 without changing the amount of installments to accept EMI from the complainant on loan amount in terms of the SMS dated 17/10/2017, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs. 2 Lacs towards compensation for causing mental torture and undue hardships to the complainant.
2. Arguments were heard on territorial jurisdiction of this forum to proceed with the matter. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed e-mails sent and received by both sides. He has also filed copy of the legal notice sent to OP as well as reply received from the OP. The complainant has also filed copy of SMS received from the OP dated 17/10/2017. In his entire complaint complainant has not disclosed as to which OP (OP 1 or OP 2 or OP 3) sent sms or email to him.
E-mails and SMS do not indicate the place of their issuance. Legal notice was sent by the complainant to the OP at its Janakpuri office and also at its registered office at Mumbai. Reply to the legal notice was sent by OP 3 having its registered office at Mumbai.
3. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
4. Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
In para 17 page 8 of the complaint dealing with territorial jurisdiction complainant has simply pleaded that Head Office of OP is located at 8 A, Milap Niketan, BSZ Marg, ITO New Delhi. Merely because head office of OP is situated at Delhi, it does not confer jurisdiction on this Forum unless and until any part of cause of action is shown to have arisen within its jurisdiction.
5. Learned Counsel for Complainant submitted that Delhi is one District and therefore complaint can be filed in any of the ten forums.
6. Our State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. First Appeal No. 488/2017 vide order dated 01.11.2017 held that:
‘’6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 in RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decions of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA 216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other and decision in Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.
7. The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area. Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.
8. Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.
9. Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012. The said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12. National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons. On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums
of Delhi was a matter of great public importance. Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance. National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit. Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.
10. The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit. It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.
11. It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. But still the fact remains that National Commission took a serious view about not following the
notification defining territorial jurisdiction. The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.’’
7. Our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 date of decision : 09.02.2017 held that:
‘’2. We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission. The project is located at Gurgaon. The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI. The name of branch is conspicuously missing. Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch. He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account. So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark. Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction. He relied upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office. Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India. There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act. Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.
3. Similar question reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, IV (2009) CPJ 40. In the said judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it
could not agree with counsel of the appellant. It was held that interpretation has to be given to amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence. If contention of counsel for appellant is accepted, it would mean that even if cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or any where in India where branch office of insurance company is situated. That would lead to absurd consequence and lead to bench hunting. The expression on branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. No doubt said interpretation would be departing from plain and literal word of section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
4. If branch office in clause 17 (2)(b) has to read alongwith cause of action, the same interpretation should apply to section 17(1)(a) so as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." alongwith cause of action.’’
8. Since no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum the complaint is returned with liberty to file the same in the forum having appropriate jurisdiction after retaining a copy of the same. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 09th day of August 2018.
