SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) Complainant’s case is that the complainant was serving in the Indian Army. He availed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (One lakh eighty thousand only) as loan from HDFC Bank, Trivandrum. Since then he has been effecting the repayment of the said amount in every month as required by its terms with out fail. Surprisingly, on 20th August 2008, the opposite party bank sent to him a letter requiring him to make payment of arrears to the tune of Rs.13,272/ -(Thirteen thousand two hundred and seventy two only). Prior to this also, the opposite party with out any qualms made frequent niggling correspondence and nagging SMS as to this. The complainant has never made any default. The said letter was sent without any basis. There was deficiency of service. The opposite party caused immense mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint seeking compensation for the same. 2. The opposite party turned up before the Forum and filed version against the complaint. It is contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The entire transactions took place in Trivandrum. Resultantly, complainant has no locus standi to file such a petition before this Forum. The other contention is that one of the cheques dated 29.10. 1999 for an amount of Rs.3172/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred seventy two only) the complainant issued to the opposite party as the payment of one of the monthly installments was not encashed. As per the terms and conditions of the loan, there is additional interest and incidental charges and the defaulted amount accrued to the tune of Rs.13,272/-. Consequently, the said demand notice was sent. As such, there is no deficiency of service or harassment. The complaint is only to be dismissed. 3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1, and Exts. Al to A6 were marked. Opposite party has been examined as RWl, and marked Ext. Bl. 4. The questions arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether this Forum has jurisdictional right to entertain this complaint? (2) Whether the opposite party has inflicted mental agony and harassment to the complainant? (3) What, if any the compensation to be awarded to the complainant? 5. Question No.1.:- The learned counsel for the opposite party invites our attention to the provisions of the Section 11 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction. The Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act reads as under:- "(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 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 carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; (c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the entire transactions took place in Trivandrum and as per Section 11(2) (b) of the Act the complaint if any, ought to have been filed at Trivandrum or any other place wherein the opposite party was having a branch office at the time of institution of the complaint. We regret, we cannot agree with the said contention of the learned counsel. If the learned counsel's contention is accepted it will mean that even if a cause of action arises in Alappuzha then too a complaint can be filed in. Trivandrum or anywhere in Kerala wherein the branch office of the opposite party situates. The salutary principle of interpretation advantageously suggests that a slight departure from the plain and literal reading of a Section of the Act is sometimes necessary, if the same is for the purpose of avoiding a consequent absurdity. 6. Thus it is clear that if the cause of action or a portion of it arises in Alappuzha, the District Forum in Alappuzha will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The issue whether the cause of action arose in Alappuzha is a question of facts and of law. It is a well settled law that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts that gives rise to a right or liability. The facts set out, by the complainant to give rise to cause of action would confer territorial jurisdiction on the District forum Alappuzha only if the facts so pleaded in the complaint have direct nexus with the dispute for which the relief is sought. 7. In the present case admittedly the communications that allegedly inflicted mental agony and harassment to the complainant were sent to Alappuzha. If it is assumed that the complainant defaulted repayment of the loan amount and the said amount was due as alleged by the opposite party, the communications so sent demanding the due amount can never be said to have rendered any mental agony nor harassment to the complainant. No deficiency of service is there. In this context, we find it proper to consider the questions of jurisdiction and harassment together, for the said issues are apparently knotted and entwined in one way or the other. 8. There is no dispute as to the factum of availing of loan or loan amount. The bone of the contentions of the complainant is that he has cleared off the entire past installments, but the opposite party without any basis made frequent agonizing and disturbing communications of demand of an amount of Rs.13272/-(Thirteen thousand two hundred and seventy two only). The opposite party contends that the cheque bearing No.849699 dated 29.10.199 drawn on Punjab National Bank Extension counter Faizalabad for an amount of Rs.3172/- was not realized and the said amount added with additional interest and incidental charges is still outstanding. The actual amount was Rs.3172/- (Three thousand one hundred seventy two only). With the additional interest and incidental charges the amount accrued to the said 13,272/-. Ext A5 last demand notice dated 20.8.2008 does not state anything as to the non-realized cheque amount. The said letter is obscure and vague as to this aspect. 9. The complainant is specific and absolute that there were no arrears and sending of said communications was deficiency of service and harassment. Now it is incumbent upon the opposite party to prove that that the complainant caused default in effecting payment. With the result correspondences demanding defaulted amount were made. RWI on cross examination stated that, “A4 dtd. 31.10.2000 Payments up to September, 2000 Going by the oral testimony of RWI it is manifest that the opposite party is totally unarmed and miserably failed to establish that any amount was due from the complainant, on the otherhand the case of the complainant gets fortified. This leads to the irresistible conclusion that the communications of the opposite party made to the complainant were without valid and sufficient reasons. The Ext. A5 demand letter was sent to the residence of the complaint in Alappuzha. When sent for no reason, it would cause injury and agony to the complainant. At the least, a portion of the cause of action has thus, arose on Alappuzha. As we have already observed, since the complainant sustained injury in Alappuzha furnishing him sufficient cause of action therein, the District Forum in Alappuzha has Jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the said complaint. Making demands of non-existent arrears is, no doubt a deficiency of service. It goes without saying the complainant is entitled to the compensation for the harassment he sustained at the hands of the opposite party. 10. It appears that the Complainant was working in Indian Army. He retired from the Army in the rank of colonel a few years ago. It is quite unfortunate that such persons who devoted their prime period to safeguard our nation fall ill-fated victim to the whimsical or capricious acts of the opposite party. Less said better about such approach. Towards compensation for the deficiency of service, and the harassment and mental agony, we hold that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.25000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which would serve the purpose. For the reasons stated herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation. No order as to cost. Accordingly the complaint is allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010. Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the Complainant:- PW1 - Sreekumaran Nair.M.S. (Witness) Ext.A1 - Copy of the letter dated 20.8.2009 Ext.A2 - Postal Receipt Ext.A3 - Acknowledgment card Ext.A4 - Letter dated 31.10.2000 Ext.A5 - Letter dated 20.8.2008 Ext.A6 - Letter dated 15.1.2009 Evidence of the opposite party:- RW1 - Sreekumaran Nair.S. (Witness) Ext.B1 - Brochure of HDFC Ltd. // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite party/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT | | 
