1)                 Sri Biswajit Saha,

            103/A/18, Akshoy Kumar Mukherjee Road, Pin-700090.            _________ Complainant

___Versus___

1)                 ICICI Bank,

            3A, Guru Saday Dutta Road,

            P.S. Ballygunge,  Kolkata-19.

2)      Manager / Authorized Officer representing

ICCI Bank,

Bishakha Building (Ground Floor),

2B, Sambhunath Panditiya Street,

P.S. Bhawanipore,  Kolkata-20.                                                      _______ Opposite Parties

Present :         Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.    27   Dated  21/01/2014.

          We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant has a visa card vde no.4076 6150 1750 7003 since January 2007. On 4.11.09 at 8-56 p.m. complainant received a call from 912242514000 the customer care no. of the o.p. to his mobile no.9830027684 and came to know about a transaction of Rs.25,000/- which s not of complainant at all.

            We further find that complainant called back to the  customer care service of ICICI Bank vide no.9831378000 and complainant of the aforesaid matter and informed him that they have already blocked the ICICI Visa Card. Complainant sent an e-mail to th November, 2009”.

            Complainant sent lawyer notice on 23.11.09 to Mr. V. Prasad (Joint General Manger & Head Credit Cards) and to the Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Complainant received a letter from “Ibu Sam” Customer Service Executive that “We regret our inability to provide you as requested by you”. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that the cause of action took place within Mumbai jurisdiction and no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and this Forum has no authority to entertain the case and the instant case is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case stands dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction against the o.ps. without cost.