| Complaint Case No. CC/11/621 |
| | | | 1. MR. ABEY VARKEY | | 356G, RECCAA ENCLAVE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30 | | ERNAKULAM | | KERALA |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. HDFC BANK | | REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CEEBROS BUILDING, 110 M.ROAD, AMMINJIKARI, CHENNAI-600029 | | TAMIL NADU | | 2. THE AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORPORATION | | REPRESENTED BY ITS MANANGER, PRESTIGE POSEIDON, MEZZANINE FLOOR, 139 RESIDENCY ROADS, BANGALORE-560025 | | KARNATAKA | | 3. CITY BANK CARD CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANANGER | | P.O. BOX NO: 4830, ANNA SALI P.O., CHENNAI | | ERNAKULAM | | 4. CREDIT INFORMATION BUREAU (INDIA LTD), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER | | HOECHST HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, 193 BACKBAY RECLAMATION, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, INDIA | | MAHARASHTRA |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. Date of filing : 09/11/2011 Date of Order : 12/12/2011 Present :- Shri. A. Rajesh, President. Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. C.C. No. 621/2011 Between
Abey Varkey, | :: | Complainant | 356G, RECCAA Enclave, Padamugal, Kakkanad, Cochin - 30. |
| (By Adv. R. Padmaraj, M/s. KNB Nair Associates Advocates, Morning Star Building, Kacheripady, Ernakulam, Cochin - 18) |
And
1. HDFC Bank, | :: | Opposite parties | Rep. by its Manager, Ceebros Building, 110 M. Road, Amminjikari, Chennai – 600 029. 2. The American Express Banking Corp., Rep. by its Manager, Prestige Poseidon, Mezzanine Floor, 139 Residency Road, Bangalore – 560 025. 3. City Bank Card Centre, Rep. by its Manager, P.O. Box No. 4830, Anna Salai. P.O., Chennai. 4. Credit Information Bureau (India Ltd.), Rep. by its Manager, Hoechst House, 6th Floor, 193 Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. |
| (Notice not send) |
O R D E R A. Rajesh, President.
Complainant present. Heard the counsel. Evidently, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as it is found no transaction has taken place with any of the branches of the opposite parties in Ernakulam District. But the counsel submitted that in fact it was an omission on their part to incorporate the part of the transactions that has actually taken place in a branch situated in Ernakulam. Eventhough we constrain to return the complaint for want of jurisdiction as of now, it will not come in the way of filing a fresh complaint incorporating all the details regarding jurisdiction. Hence the complaint is returned with the liberty to file a fresh complaint, if so advised. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of December 2011.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
| |
