BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.50/13.

Date of instt.: 17.04.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 05.12.2014.

Rakesh Verma s/o Ram Verma, r/o Arjun Nagar, Gali No.2, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Life Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.111, Sector-13, Opp. OPS Vidya Mandir School, Karnal.

2. Life Housing Finance Ltd., MSM Consultant Opp. HDFC Bank, Ist Floor, Apollo Tyres, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Harbans Verma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vineet Rathore, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

None for Op No.2.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has borrowed a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the Ops which was to be paid in instalment i.e. Rs.4799/- per month and the said instalment is to be paid through HDFC bank account No.05251530012849.  It is alleged that the complainant is paying the instalments regularly and is never defaulted in payment.  It is further alleged that in the month of July, 2012, the Ops have presented the cheque twice bearing No.0631992 and 0631991 i.e. on 20.07.2012 and 26.07.2012 respectively.  It is further alleged that the Ops received their payment of the said month through cheque No.0631992 which was presented on 20.07.2012 and presented another cheque bearing No.0631991 on 26.07.2012 with malafide intention in the same month which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the banker of complainant deducted a sum of Rs.393.26 paise from the account of complainant.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that in the entire complaint, there is nowhere mention that how any cause of action, if any, has arisen in favour of complainant.  The loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant at Karnal, where the area office is situated.  This fact suggests that the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint on false and flimsy grounds; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the entry of presenting two cheques in one month and dishonouring of one cheque in the same month for want of sufficient funds, was reversed in the loan account and the amount of Rs.350/- which was levied as bank charges in the statement of account has been credited in the loan account.  The unintentional mistake was rectified as soon as this fact was established.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 made statement on 17.10.2013 that the reply filed on behalf of Op No.1 be also read on behalf of Op No.2.     

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.  None appeared on behalf of Op No.2 at the time of arguments. 

6.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant borrowed a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the Ops which was to be paid in instalment i.e. Rs.4799/- per month and the said instalment was to be paid through HDFC bank account No.05251530012849.  In the month of July, 2012, the Ops have presented the cheque twice bearing No.0631992 and 0631991 i.e. on 20.07.2012 and 26.07.2012 respectively.  The Ops received their payment of the said month through cheque No.0631992 which was presented on 20.07.2012 and presented another cheque bearing No.0631991 on 26.07.2012 with malafide intention in the same month which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the banker of complainant deducted a sum of Rs.393.26 paise from the account of complainant.  On perusal of copy of statement of loan account No.14913658 on page No.6 of 8 (Ex.R3), it is crystal clear that the entry of presenting two cheques in one month and dishonouring of one cheque in the same month for want of sufficient funds, was reversed in the loan account and the amount of Rs.350/, which was levied as bank charges in the statement of account has been credited in the loan account.  This mistake was rectified by the Ops.  So, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

8.     The second aspect of the case is that in the present case, the cause of action was accrued at Karnal as the policy was issued from Karnal, so, the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum does not lie.  According to Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Ops should, at the time of institution of complaint actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office in the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Secondly, the cause of action should arise within the limit of this Forum.  Thus, the Ops did not reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction and hence, the Distt. Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.   In view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as-well-as authority reported as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, this forum at Kaithal has no jurisdiction because in the authority referred and relied above by counsel of OPs, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Territorial jurisdiction-Insurance Claim-Cause of action-The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala-The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala-Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction-State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint-Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission.  No contrary authority has been produced by the complainant. Thus, in our view, the present complaint is not maintainable here.  So, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.05.12.2014.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.