Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/761/2019

Harpreet Singh Oberoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Chetan Puri

01 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	761 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	14.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	01.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Harpreet Singh Oberoi son of Sh.Hardev Singh, Aged 58 years, Resident of House No.1925, Phase-10, Mohali.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Indusind Bank Ltd., Regd. Office 2401, General Thinmayya Road (Cantonment), Pune, Maharashtra 411001 through its Managing Director

2]  Indusind Bank, Regional Office SCO No.53-54, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Branch Manager

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Ms.Kajjal Mittal, Adv. proxy for Sh.Chetan Puri,     Counsel for the complainant

 

Sh.Arun Dogra, Counsel for OPs

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he obtained Credit Card No.4147524040893005 of OPs by paying Rs.25,000/- only on the assurance & promise of their marketing executive about providing four promotion codes which can be redeemed for booking the air tickets of Jet Airways.  It is stated that though the promotion codes were provided to the complainant, but the same were not redeemed by the OPs.  It is stated that on 27.8.2018 when complainant tried to book air tickets for travel to Hyderabad through promotion codes of OPs for 100% discount on the base fare, it was denied with message that there are not enough seats in the promotion to service the request.  It is stated that even on 4.7.2018 when complainant visited IGI Airport, Delhi to pick his sister and tried to use the lounge access through the credit card of OPs, the same was denied. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs and requested for refund of Rs.25,000/- in response to which the OPs suggested steps of using the promotional codes.  It is submitted that the complainant even followed the steps explained by the OPs for redeeming promotion codes but again on 10.7.2018 he could not book the air ticket from Delhi to Hyderabad as the promotion codes did not function.  Thereafter, the complainant received email dated 14.2.2019 from the OPs clarifying that the said promotional codes were valid upto 30.11.2018. The complainant requested the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- but they showed inability to refund vide email dated 5.4.2019.  The complainant also sent legal notice to OPs but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct OPs to refund Rs.25,000/- along with interest as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OPs put in appearance and filed their written version stating that the complainant is resident of Mohali, the credit card division of OPs is situated at Pune, Maharastra and nothing transpired in Chandigarh Branch of OPs, so no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant and against the OPs in Chandigarh therefore, this Commission (earlier known as Forum) does have the territorial jurisdiction to try & entertain the present complaint. 

         It is submitted that the complainant was issued credit card in question against One Time Joining fee of credit card to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.  It is submitted that the along with credit card, the complainant was issued welcome gift as per his choice in the shape of Jet Airways promotion codes, which were issued in collaboration with M/s Jet Airways, a third party having separate entity, which has not been made party to the present complaint. It is also submitted that the allegations raised by the complainant against M/s Jet Airways can only be clarified by said party and in its absence, it would not be possible to reach at the root of the controversy.  It is stated that even as per the terms & conditions, the tickets were to be made available on first-come, first-serve basis and are subject to availability.  It is pleaded that Rs.25,000/- was paid by the complainant towards the One Time Joining fee for the issuance of credit card, which was duly issued and is in the custody of the complainant, as such there is no question of refund of Rs.25,000/- arises.  It is also pleaded that the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied vide reply dated 9.8.2019 (Ann.R-2). Lastly the OPs have prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the written arguments.

 

5]       The first question to be decided is as to whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not ?

 

6]       It is observed that the complainant is resident of Mohali (Punjab) and falls within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). The Opposite party No.1 who issued the credit card in question is situated at Maharashtra.  Hence, neither the complainant is residing at Chandigarh nor the OP No.1 falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. There is no document to show that the complainant availed the services of OP No.2 and OP No.2 appears to have been made party only to institute the complaint at Chandigarh.

 

7]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company, 2010(I) CLT 2521  held that there should be nexus between the cause of action and the District Commission having territorial jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued.  “It is held that fire admittedly broken in the godown at Ambala, the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala.  Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Commission at Chandigarh has not territorial jurisdiction.”

 

8]       In the present case, this Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate upon this complaint as neither the complainant is residing within its jurisdiction nor the OP No.1 who issued the credit card in question falls within its territorial jurisdiction.  Therefore, taking into account the above stated facts & circumstances, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable and it is ordered to be returned to the complainant with permission to file before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S.C.O. No.72, Phase-2, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160059 or any other competent Court of Law/Tribunal/ Authority and the time spent herein may stand commuted/condoned for the purpose of limitation.

9]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

10]      Office is directed to return the complaint to the complainant against proper receipt and after retaining its copy.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the complainant, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.11.2023                                                                    

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER