DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 120
Instituted on: 27.03.2017
Decided on: 22.06.2017
Jaswant Singh aged 46 years son of Puran Singh R/O 240, Village Karail, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SCO 9-10, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager.
2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 6th Floor, SCO 120, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri J.S.Sarao, Adv.
For OPs : Shri Hitesh Jindal, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Jaswant Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by getting sanctioned a loan from the OPs under loan account number CB-2381067 dated 5.9.2011 and that the complainant repaid all the loan instalments to the OPs. The grievance of the complainant is that after repayment of the loan amount, the complainant approached the OPs for issuance of NOC as the hypothecation had entered in the registration certificate of the above said vehicle, but instead of issuing NOC to the complainant, the Ops told the complainant to pay Rs.2,44,935/-. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to issue NOC with regard to the vehicle in question without demanding any amount and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is baseless, that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, that the vehicle in question was got financed for commercial purpose by the complainant from Ludhiana and hire purchase agreement was entered between the parties at Ludhiana , that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had availed the loan facility from the OP in 2011 for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- and that the amount of Rs.2,17,548/-. It has been denied that the liability against the said account stands cleared. It is stated that NOC could not be issued due to non payment of the amount. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties also filed an application on 26.5.2017 for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the vehicle in question was got financed for commercial purposes and the hire purchase agreement was executed at Ludhiana, as such, the complaint is sought to be dismissed only on the ground of jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action has arisen here at Sangrur. In reply to the application, it has been stated that the vehicle in question was got financed from OP number 1 at Sangrur and the complainant never visited OP number 2 at Ludhiana and further the complainant deposited the EMIs at Sangrur with the OP number 1 and as such has prayed that this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.
4. We have perused the copy of schedule under agreement number CV2381067 duly signed by the complainant as well as the OPs along with co-borrower and guarantor, which clearly reveals that the place of execution of agreement is Ludhiana on 5.11.2011, which clearly falsifies the stand of the complainant that the agreement took place at Sangrur. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that the agreement was signed here at Sangrur or in the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complaint can be filed before the District Forum within the jurisdiction of which opposite party or each of the opposite parties voluntarily resided or work for gain or any of opposite parties resides for work or where cause of action wholly or in part arises. To support this contention, the complainant has cited Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. and another versus D.Adhilakshmi and another 2013(1) CPJ 169. But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has cited Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Limited 2010(1) CLT 252, wherein the godown of the appellants caught fire at Ambala and the claim petition under section 17 was filed before the Consumer Forum, UT, Chandigarh and the insurance policy was taken at Ambala and claim for compensation was made at Ambala. No part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh, hence, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Consumer Forum UT Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction. The same is the position in the present case, as the complainant got sanctioned loan at Ludhiana, but filed the present complaint at Sangrur for issuance of NOC. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint should be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana.
5. In view of our above discussion, we allow the application of the OPs for dismissal of the complaint only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed only for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court of law, if he so desired. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 22, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
