DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/44/2019

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Pravesh Kumar Yadav

R/o E – 52/3, Mohanbaba Nagar

Badarpur Border, New Delhi - 110044

                                                                                               …..Complainant

 VERSUS

ICICI Bank Limited

Videocon Tower, Rani Jhansi Road,

Block E – 1, Jhandewalan Extension,

New Dehi - 110055

                                                                                               .…. Opposite Party

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President                    

               Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                Shri R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Shri R.C. Meena, Member

1. Instant complaint has been filed the complainant alleging therein that complainant applied for personal loan to check for a better rate of interest among HDFC and ICICI Bank herein after referred as ‘OP’ and have opted to go with HDFC as HDFC offered loan at better rate of interest and denied loan deal with ‘OP’ though OP kept on persuading the complainant to give for the loan.  It is further alleged that on 07/01/2016 complainant received a text of approval of personal loan with OP.  Complainant called upon OP to cancel this deal but OP failed to track his details with him as the amount was not disbursed. 

       Complainant called DST personnel but it was told that it cannot be reversed asamount has already disbursed which was credited to           the account of the complainant on 18/06/2016 whereas on receiving the welcome letter through email on 07/01/2016 and apart from         calling the ICICI (OP) complainant sent email dated 08/01/2016 before the actual disbursement of the loan when failed

to get any quick response from the OP complainant visited the office of the OP at New Delhi.It is further alleged that since then complainant is trying to get this issue resolved but OP failed to offer a deal to its satisfaction.Complainant prayed that OP be directed to stop their collection department / agencies from making any harassment and did not send their authorized persons at the residence of the complainant in his absence.Instruct OP to stop any other deduction of deduction of EMI’s from his salary account as complainant wishes to close the loan account to pay litigation cost along with compensation and to pay litigation cost along with compensation.

2. We have heard the complainant in person and perused the case file.              
3. The complaint is at admission stage.  Complainant has not placed any document on record to establish that any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.   Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 22/02/2019 and was listed for admission on 26/02/2019.  Since 26/02/2019 complainant took several adjournments to place on record the documents   in order to bring the complaint filed by him within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.  But complainant has failed to place any document on record to show that any transaction has taken place between the complainant and OP within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.Complainant has placed on record the copies of the emails of OP received from its office but the same does not contain the address of the OP.The letters received from the office of the OP and filed by the complainant contained the address of the registered office of the OP at Mumbai.Complainant states that OP has its branch office at Jhandewalan New Delhi but complainant has failed to prove any transaction which has taken place between the parties to establish that any part of cause of action has arisen at Jhandewalan Branch.

4.       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.  

5.       Reference may also be made to the 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 toDistrict 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.

6.        Since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, this Forum does not have territorial Jurisdiction.  The complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant along with an endorsement containing the date of presentation and date of return of the complaint, name of the complainant presenting the complaint and brief statement of reasons for returning the complaint for its presentation before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.   File be consigned to record room.

           Announced on this 06^th  Day of  June  2019.