DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 67 of 2009 Date of Institution: 27.01.2009 Date of Decision: 13.11.2015.
Rajbir Singh, R/o A-11/2, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Bank, The ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 through its Managing Director.
- The ICICI HFC Limited, ICICI Bank, Uphar Cinema Complex, Green Park, New Delhi-110 016 through its Branch Credit Manager.
- ICICI Bank Limited, SCO 18-19, HUDA Shopping Centre, Sector-14, Market Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mohan Shakti, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Ajay Singh, Adv for the opposite parties.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had applied for a loan of Rs.1,85,00,000/- with the OPs at its Branch Office at Delhi i.e. OP-2 vide application No.77900446769 dated 28.12.2007 which was sanctioned but the opposite parties failed to reimburse the same to the complainant due to the reasons best known to them. During the process of loan, the opposite parties have obtained some cheques from the complainant, the details of which have been mentioned in Para No.2 of the complaint. The opposite parties have received the processing fee of Rs.1,40,450/- by way of DD bearing No.081570 dated 29.02.2008 and further fraudulently received the processing and thus, the opposite parties haves misled the complainant. When the opposite parties intimated the complainant that the amount of loan cannot be disbursed to him, then complainant applied for return of the Cheques and other documents but the opposite parties only returned two Cheques i.e. one for Rs.1,03,933/- and other for Rs.43,034/- but they have not paid Rs.35,000/-. They also failed to return the documents. Thus, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to return the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest and to return the documents. He also sought compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs. The complainant has supported his complaint with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OPs in their joint written reply have alleged that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction as the complainant has claimed the compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs and refund of Rs.35,000/- totaling Rs.20,35,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. This Forum has also no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. The complainant has also concealed the true and material facts from this Forum as he did not disclose the fact that he was enjoying a loan from Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) and the loan was to be transferred from SCB to ICICI Bank which was not done because the SCB has refused to do so. The Bank also issued Cheques favouring SCB for disbursing the loan, the details of which have been mentioned in Para No.1 of the written reply but the SCB refused to accept the above said Cheques and the same were cancelled by the OP. The SCB did not give any reason for not accepting the Cheques and the above said act cannot be said to be a failure on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties have refunded all the amounts to the complainant only after deducting Rs.30,000/- towards processing fee. It is denied that the complainant handed over any document to the opposite party as the same is not required when loan is transferred from one bank to another. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have deducted the process fee of Rs.35,000/- despite the fact that loan was not granted to the complainant.
5 However, as per the contentions of the OPs this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case because the OP-1 has got its office at Mumbai whereas OP-2 has got its office at Green Park at Delhi and OP-3 has been impleaded unnecessarily despite the fact that no transaction has taken place between the complainant and the OP-3 and thus, for want of territorial jurisdiction this Forum is not competent to adjudicate upon the matter.
6 Therefore after going through the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the correspondence regarding availing of loan took place with OP-1 & OP-2. There is nothing on the file that any correspondence regarding availing of loan took place with OP-3 which has got its office at Gurgaon, Haryana. It is pertinent to mention here that legal notice was also sent at Bombay as well as Delhi. No legal notice whatsoever was ever sent to OP-3 having office at Gurgaon, Haryana. Therefore, it seems that OP-3 having office at Gurgaon has been impleaded only to usurp the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also pertinent to mention here that complainant in para No.8 of the complaint has mentioned that since the complaint has been residing at Gurgaon and as such this Forum has got jurisdiction which is against the provisions of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under:
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2[carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 3[carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 4[carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
In this regard reliance can also be placed on Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd 2010 CTJ 2 (SC) (CP).
7 Keeping in view of our above discussion we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and thus, the complaint is hereby dismissed as having no jurisdiction. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
13.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
