IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 78/S/2016.                            DATED : 30.06.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.  

COMPLAINANT             : SRI CHHOTTU CHAKRABORTY,

  S/o. Sri Kanai Lal Chakraborty,

  R/O. Matigara Govt. Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Matigara,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal.  Pin – 734 010.   

  Phone : 98323 78547.                                                                        

O.Ps.             1.                        : M/S BAJAJ FINSERV LENDING,

  Bajaj Auto Show Room Building, Sevoke Road,

  Siliguri, P.O.- Siliguri, P.S. - Bhaktinagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.

2.                     : M/S BAJAJ FINSERV LENDING,

  4^th Floor, Survey No. 208/1-B, Viman Nagar,

  Pune, Maharashtra.  Pin – 411 014.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

Consumer Case No.78/S/2016

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached to the OPs M/S Bajaj Finserv Lending for sanction of a loan of Rs.42,000/- in his favour and the said amount was sanctioned by the OPs but on 03.07.2016 an amount of Rs.37,633/- was credited towards the SBI Account of the complainant, Matigara Hat Branch, Khaprail More, vide Account No.20050178881 instead of the sanctioned amount of Rs.42,000/-.

It has been asserted by the complainant that as per terms and condition of the policy the OPs had to deposit the full amount of loan sanctioned in favour of the complainant, but the OPs without informing the complainant had deducted huge amount which was unknown to the complainant and not informed to the complainant prior to sanction of the loan.  The OPs hide the fact and misleaded the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and they did not act as per law.

The complainant sent a reminder through mail on 20.07.2016 to the OPs with a request to look into the matter and to solve the issue and on 23.07.2016 a reply mail was received from the OPs and on reply the complainant further stated by mail that he shall not give any extra charges except the loan processing fees but the OPs have intentionally harassed and deducted a huge amount for their illegal gain.  Hence this case filed by the complainant against the OPs for payment of full claim amount of Rs.42,000/- save and except deducting the nominal charges of processing fees and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony, expenses of correspondence and cost of the proceedings.

The OP Nos.1 & 2 entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint has been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case of the complainant is not maintainable.  It has been contended by the OPs that the case of the complainant fails due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.  It has been further contended by the OPs that the loan was availed by the complainant for an amount of Rs.42,000/- and an amount of Rs.37,633/- was credited towards the complainant’s account after deducting certain incidental charges and it is evident that the complainant was well aware about the deductions being made from the complainant’s account and as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.                   

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Xerox copy of sanctioned letter is annexed as Annexure – A.

2.       Xerox copy of the bank pass book showing the entry dt. 03.07.2016 is annexed as Annexure-B.

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

3.       Xerox copy of the said print of mail dt. 17.07.2016 is Annexure-C.

4.       Xerox copy of the said print of mail dt. 20.07.2016 is Annexure-D.

5.       Xerox copy of the said print of mail dt. 23.07.2016 is Annexure-E.

          OPs have filed the following documents :-

1.       Xerox copy of statement of account.

2.       Xerox copy of disbursement memo. 

3.       Xerox copy of Insurance Enrolment Form.

Complainant has filed Examination-in-chief.

          Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument.

OP No.3 has filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Whether the case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

2.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

3.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

Point No.1

This issue is taken up individually for discussion for the sake of convenience.

The Ld. Advocate of the OP during his course of argument has submitted that this case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The Ld. Advocate of the OP has further submitted that the office of the OP No.1 is situated at Sevoke Road, within P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri and not within the jurisdiction of Siliguri and the Office of OP No.2 is situated at Pune, Maharashtra.  So, it is clear that both the offices of the OPs are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such this case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Ld. Advocate of the complainant on the other hand has submitted that so far the knowledge of the complainant, the office of the OP No.1 is situated at Siliguri under Siliguri P.S. and within the jurisdiction of this Forum. 

Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that the Branch Office of OP No.1 M/s Bajaj Finserv Lending, Bajaj Auto Show Room Building, Sevoke Road, Siliguri is situated under Bhaktinagar P.S.,     Dist.- Jalpaiguri.   

The complainant never stated by swearing affidavit that the Office of the OP No.1 is not situated under P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri or that the same is situated under P.S. Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Darjeeling.

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

As per the Notification No.2906-CA/ESTT/O/5C-17/13 dated 07.10.2015 of the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal, which runs as follows :-

“In exercise of the power conferred by section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Governor is hereby pleased to prescribe for the purposes of the said Act that the local limits u/s 11 of the Act ibid of District Forum, as specified in column 2 of the table below, shall include the areas as mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 3 of the table below”.

SCHEDULE

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-

(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 [carried 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 District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office,] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.  

In view of the above Government Notification and Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this case as the present case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, we find that the above case is totally barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and accordingly liable to be dismissed.

As the case is failed on jurisdiction point, so we are of the view that issue Nos.2 & 3 are not required to be discussed. 

In the result, the case fails.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.20/S/2016 is dismissed being barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.