Order no. 10 date: 17-07-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order dated 27-03-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 53/2015.

By such Revision, it is stated by the Revisionists that Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants filed a complaint case before the Ld. District Forum being no. 481/2014 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  On notice, the Revisionists appeared before the Ld. District Forum challenging maintainability of the concerned case and after hearing both sides, the Ld. District Forum disposed of the complaint directing the Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.  Subsequently, in the month of March, 2015 the said Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants again filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum being C.C. No. 53/2015 against the Revisionists on the self same cause of action.  However, on scrutiny, it appeared that this time, the Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants included the name of their banker to invoke the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.  Although the Revisionists steadfastly opposed maintainability of the case on the self same point of territorial jurisdiction, the Ld. District Forum this time rejected the said maintainability petition of the Revisionists.  Another point raised by the Revisionists is that although the Ld. President was not present at the time of hearing, he put his signature on the impugned order.  Thus, the Ld. President passed the order without hearing the argument.  According to the Revisionists, for these reasons the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.  Accordingly, this Revision.

Heard both sides and perused the material on record, including the citations referred to by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revisionists.

On going through the petition of complaint it appears that alleging deficiency in service during their trip to Cairo being organized by the Revisionists, the Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants filed the complaint.  On going through the cause title, we find that the business place of both the Revisionists is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. 

It appears, to cover up this lacuna, the Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants impleaded their banker into the case.  However, what is noticeable here is the fact that the Respondent Nos. 1&2/Complainants had no grievance against the bank.  Therefore, it cannot be a necessary party to the case.  Merely because payment was remitted through the said bank, it does not give rise to any cause of action.  The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Vs. J. K. Khanna, reported in II (1994) CPJ 90 (NC), as referred to by the Ld. Advocate of the Revisionists perfectly dovetail in this regard.

Another aspect being pointed out by the Revisionists is that although the Ld. President was not present at the time of hearing of the maintainability petition, he signed the impugned order.  This cannot be done. Without hearing a matter, one cannot legally sign an order.   

Thus, we find every merit into the contention of the Revisionists. 

The Revision is, accordingly, allowed. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That RP/59/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Consequently, the complaint case stands dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.