Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal

                              Member                 

Date of Order : 07.08.2015

                    Smt. Karishma Mandal

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To pay Rs. 84,500/- ( Balance amounts or whatsoever is payable ) with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit to final payment and interest @ 18% may be allowed for deficiency in services from 2008 to final payments on entire deposited amounts, which had been received by the builder.
2. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The present complaint petition is being filed to remove deficiency in service, negligence and / or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Act 1986. And to allow compensation, and interest on admitted payment received by the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 from the date of receiving to final payment to the claimants. The claimants have loosed interest on money due to negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2. The claimants suffered loss and injury also.
2. The opposite party no. 3 is a Bank and has provided loan to the claimant no. 2 on certain conditions for the purpose of purchasing the flat of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 of this case. The opposite party no. 3 is a formal party in this case, therefore, claimants have no any claim and / or complaint against the opposite party no. 3. But the opposite party no. 3is an essential party in this case. So the opposite party no. 3 has been made in this case for the interest of the justice.
3. The complainants are closed relatives and having same complaints and claim upon the aforesaid parties i.e. payment of interest on admitted received payment from the complainants. Because the opposite parties have clearly not accepted to pay interest on deposited amount in spite of proper requests made by the complainant no. 1 with prediction and permission of this forum this complaint petition is being filed jointly. There is no need to file a separate petition with regards to this issue, therefore, the complainants have not filed a petition.
4. So far as cause of action concerned. Cause of action has started on 15.09.2011, when the opposite parties have denied paying interest on admitted amounts received by the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 through legal notice reply. The complaint case is well within time under the Consumer protection Act 1986. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
5. The complainants entered into agreements with the opposite party no. 1 & 2 for constructing a flat/ Apartment with parking space. As per agreements total cost has been fixed at cost of Rs. 11, 84,000/- ( Rs. Eleven Lac Eighty Four Thousand only ) car parking was including. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
6. The opposite party no. 3 has allowed loan to claimant no. 2 on some conditions, under housing loan scheme. ( Vide Annexure – 3 )
7. According to terms and conditions, the apartment was to be completed till Oct. 2008. The opposite parties had received amount from the purchaser in year 2006. The opposite parties assured that as per agreement entire works have been finished in time. But the opposite parties have not started any work within period. The claimants made request with the opposite parties time to time, but they did not care about complaints of the claimants. The opposite parties have ignored all complaints and request. Having seen no other option the complainant no. 1 filed a request petition for refunding entire payment received by the opposite party no. 1 & 2.
8. The opposite parties agreed and refunded some amounts to the claimant no. 1. But a major part Rs. 84,500/- ( Rs. Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred only ) is still dues out of total payment. The claimant no. 1 again requested through legal notice for clearing all dues payments with proper interest. But they are not ready to refund amount with interest.
9. The claimant had to pay interest to the financer Unnecessary due to fault, and negligence of the opposite parties. Now the claimant have no alternative remedy but to file complaint, therefore this complaint case has been filed on the amongst.
10. It is submitted that the action of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 are illegal, unfair, and against the law. The opposite parties can not deny paying interest on admitted amounts. It is well settled law by the Apex Court of India. It is natural justice that party should not be suffered on account of other party fault.
11. The opposite parties are acting as a builder. The opposite parties have breached the terms and conditions of the agreement without mentioning any reasons. As per agreement apartment was to be constructed by 2008. But the opposite parties have enjoyed escape consequences of illegal act, fault, Imperfection, inactive, if any.
12. So far as cause of action is concerned, it is humbly submitted that cause of action fully or partly started in local jurisdiction of this forum. Because entire business dealing was concluded in Patna. The opposite parties come at Patna and convinced to his purchaser in Patna. The opposite parties have full knowledge about this fact. Financer resides in local jurisdiction of this forum.
13. It is well settled law that according to contract Act communication of repudiation is binding the person so communicated only. From perusal of reply dated it is clear that the entire communication were at Patna jurisdiction. Addresses of the consumers are mentioned in agreement paper at Patna. All legal formal formalities were completed in this local area.
14. Under Consumer protection Act 1986, it has been clearly stated that

1. Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where ………….
2. A complainants shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction –

1. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or
2. Any of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaints, actually and voluntarily resides, or …………………. Or
3. The cause of action, wholly or part, arise

Now, it is submitted that cause of action of this case has started either wholly or partly in local jurisdiction of this forum, therefore this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this case for the interest of justice.

15. From perusal of the agreement, it would be clear that there is nowhere mentioned that the builder will not pay interest on deposited amounts in any conditions, whatsoever. It is submitted that the opposite parties have to pay interest on deposited amounts, if terms and conditions fails, deliberately, intentionally, wilfully. We know that terms and conditions are binding upon the parties.
16. It is well settled law by the Apex Court of India that if two interpretation are possible in documents benefits should be given to consumer. In this case the complainants are consumer of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2. There is two interpretation are possible in this case, therefore benefits must be given to consumer under the law.
17. The opposite parties have been enjoying money of the consumer till today by making illegal arguments. It is illegal and unfair under the law.
18. It is well settled law interest can be allowed on equitable grounds for the interest of justice, if consumers suffered loss due to fault of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have no veiled reasons to deny principal amount refund at least principal amount must be refunded within reasonable time. In spite of prayer the opposite parties did not return dues amounts to the complainant no. 1. It is illegal under the law.
19. All other points shall be put at the time of hearing if required under the law. The claimants may file more evidences documents petitions at any under the facts and law.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 & 2 in their written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. These opposite parties no. 1 & 2 submits that the above complaint is wholly false, frivolous, baseless, wholly misconceived and vexatious, the same has been filed with malafide intention of harassing the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and extorting monies illegally. The complaint is untenable both in law and on facts and circumstances of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
2. It is submitted that the complainants have not approached this forum with clean hands. In addition to the above, there is no deficiency of service as alleged, on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
3. These opposite parties submits that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the complaint. It is submitted that the entire transaction i.e. the entering into the agreement of Sale and construction agreement with respect to the subject flats were entered into between the parties at Bangalore and the said flats i.e. the property, is situated at Bangalore. As such the Courts at Bangalore only have jurisdiction to try and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. Hence, on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted the only fact that the complainants are residing at Patna does not confer jurisdiction on this forum to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
4. These opposite parties submits that, the transaction entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties and the further correspondence regarding the cancellation of the flat and seeking of refund of the amounts from the opposite parties by the complainants do not give any cause to file the consumer complaint, and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of flat/s in question has already been cancelled in the year 2010 itself and therefore the complainants do not fall under the category of ‘Consumers’ as defined under the Act opposite parties on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Without prejudice to the contention raised above, these opposite parties submits that the averments made by the complainants in the complaint are false and they have hidden the real facts and have filed the above complaint with malafide intention to extort money from these opposite parties.
6. The complainants had entered into the agreement of Sale dated 06.01.2007, for the purchase of  0.586% of undivided right, title and interest representing to 360 sq. ft., in the residentially converted land bearing Survey No. 41/4, situated at B. Narayanpura Village, K,R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore east Taluk, with Mr. C. Ashok, Ms. Madhu, Ms. Mala, Master Manoj Kumar and M/s V-5 Builders, Bangalore. Further the construction agreement dated 06.01.2007, for the construction of apartment No. C – 201 on the first floor of the multistoried building “ Krishnageet Shelters ” to be built on the aforementioned property at the cost and expenses of the complainants, with the opposite parties no. 1 & 2. It is further submitted that on the same day Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary, wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, son of late Bachu Prasad Sinha have entered into the agreement of Sale with Mr. C. Ashok, Mr. C. Ashok, Ms. Madhu, Ms. Mala, Master Manoj Kumar and M/s V-5 Builders, Bangalore, for the purchase of  0.586% of undivided right, title and interest representing to 360 sq. ft., in the residentially converted land bearing Survey No. 41/4, situated at B. Narayanpura Village, K,R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore east Taluk. Further, they have also entered into the construction agreement dated 06.01.2007, for the construction of apartment No. C – 101 on the first floor of the multistoried building “ Krsihangeet Shelters ” to be built on the aforementioned property at the cost and the expenses of the complainants, with the opposite parties no. 1 & 2. The complainants and the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary and Mr. Praiya Ranjan Ashish Kumar have paid Rs. 11,85,000/- from time to time. Subsequently, the complainants preferred to rescind from the contract and sought for refund of the advance amounts paid by them as well as the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, vide letter dated 14.11.2010.
7. These opposite parties submits that even though they were ready for delivering the aforementioned apartment and for executing the land owners were  ready and willing to execute the Sale Deed with respect to the undivided share, the complainant and the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar preferred to cancel the contract and take back the refund. The opposite parties no. 1 & 2 had accepted the same and refunded the amount of Rs. 11,01,002/- from time to time to the complainants as well as the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, which they have accepted, admitted and encahsed. There was only an amount of Rs. 83,998/- due to te complainant as well as to the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar and this amount the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 have agreed to refund upon receipt of the original agreements of Sale and construction agreement dated 06.01.2007, which are in the possession of the complainants and the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar.
8. These opposite parties submits that, the complainant no. 1 preferred to issue a legal legal notice dated 02.09.2011through his counsel allegedly claiming the entire amount of Rs. 84,500/- along with the alleged interest @ 12% per annum on the alleged amount of Rs. 6,35,001/-. These opposite parties had sent the befitting reply notice dated 15.09.2011, clearly mentioning that the amount to be refunded to the complainants as well as the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar is only Rs. 83,998/- and not Rs. 84,500/- and have requested through the reply notice to return back the original agreement of Sale and the construction agreement. It is further submitted that the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 have at no point of time agreed to pay the alleged interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant or the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, which also made crystal clear in the reply notice. The said reply notice has been duly served on the counsel of the complainant no. 1.
9. These opposite parties submits that, now concerning all the above details, and misrepresenting the above true facts the complainants have approached this forum with the allegation of deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice etc. of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2, which not maintainable either on law or on facts.
10. These opposite parties submits that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint, as the very property and the transaction have transpired at Bangalore and hence the jurisdiction to file the complaint lies with consumer forum/ courts in Bangalore. The provision of the law under Section 11 of the Consumer protection Act 1986 which clearly indicates in clause 2 (a) (b) of the Section says that a complaint shall be instituted in a District forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite parties or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or any of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complainant actually and voluntarily resides. These facts have been admitted by the complainants in their complainant in Paragraph 5. This being the facts the complaint has no legs to stand and hence, the very complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold as this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain such a frivolous complaint.
11. These opposite parties submits that, the complainants in their complaint alleges about the deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice of the opposite parties no. 1 & 2,  but the complainant has not provided any iota of evidence to prove these allegation. In fact, the entire complaint, goes to state about the payment of the balance amount as well as the alleged interest, which clearly shows that the claim is of civil in nature and thus cannot be entertained by this forum. If the alleged claims of interest, interest, damages etc. claimed by the complainant are to be looked into a thorough trail of the same has to be conducted which is possible only through a civil suit. The complainants, instead of approaching the civil courts at Bangalore forum just to avoid payment of the court fee and thereby to have an illegal gain. Hence, on this ground also the above complaint is liable to be dismissed  in limine.
12. These opposite parties submits that, they were ready and willing to deliver the vacant possession of the apartments allotted to the complainants as well as the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, but they preferred to rescind from the aforementioned agreement of Sale as well as construction agreement and sought for the refund of the amount paid by them. From the above, it is clear that the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract under the agreement. When once the agreement are cancelled and substantial amounts refunds to the complainants which have been accepted and acknowledged by them, the complainants have not locus stand to state about deficiency of service, negligence or unfair trade practice. Hence, the very complaint of the complainants have no legs to stands and such complaints misusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act should not be entertained and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
13. Without prejudice to the contention raised above, the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 submits that the averments made in Paragraph no. 1 of the complaint are absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious. The explanations mentioned in the foregoing paragraph clearly shows that there is neither deficiency of service not negligence nor unfair trade practice on the part of these opposite parties and not a scrap of paper has been furnished by the complainant in support of the allegations made and hence the same are denied by these opposite parties, as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
14. These opposite parties submits that the averments made in paragraph no. 2 of the complaint is not within their knowledge and hence the same are denied as false.
15. These opposite parties submits that the allegation made in paragraph no. 3 of the complaint regarding the relationship of the complainants are not within the knowledge of these opposite parties and hence the same is denied as false. Further, the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 have at no point of time have agreed to pay any interest on the amounts paid by the complainants and hence the allegation in the said paragraph are denied as false and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.
16. These opposite parties submits that the allegations made in paragraph no. 4 of the complaint are not true. There is no cause of action for the complainants to file the frivolous complaint and the same has been filed with ulterior motive and to have illegal gain through illegal means.
17. These opposite parties submits that the allegations made in paragraph no. 5(a) of the complaint have been explained in detail in paragraph 6 and 7 of this version. However, averments made in paragraph no. 5(b) of the complaint are not within the knowledge of these opposite parties and hence the same are denied as false and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.
18. These opposite parties submits that the allegation made in paragraph no. 5(c) of the complaint are absolutely false. These opposite parties were ready and willing to deliver the vacant possession of the apartments as started above, but the complainant and the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, preferred to rescind from the agreement sought for the refund of the amount and they accepted, admitted acknowledged and encashed the amount refunded by these opposite parties. The further allegations in paragraph no. 5(d) with regard to refund of the amounts the legal notice etc. have been explained in paragraph no. 8 of this version and hence the allegation made by the complainant in this paragraph are denied as false and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.
19. These opposite parties submits that the allegations made in paragraph no. 5(e) of the complaint are absolutely false. The allegation regarding the payment of interest to the financiers by the complainants is not within the knowledge of these opposite parties. Further, there are no negligence on the part of these opposite parties as alleged in the said paragraph, as they have already refunded substantial amounts received by them from the complainants the said        Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar  and the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 are ready to refund the balance sum of Rs. 83,998/- provided the complainant as well as the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar return the original agreement of Sale as well as the Construction Agreement to these opposite parties.
20. These opposite parties submits that the allegations made in paragraph no. 1 of the grounds regarding the alleged illegal, unfair action and the opposite parties, at no point of time, have agreed to pay interest on the amount paid by the complainants and the said Dr. ( Mrs. ) Alka Chaudhary wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar. Hence the allegations are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
21. These opposite parties submits that the allegation made in paragraph no. 2 of the grounds regarding the alleged breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. It is submitted that, when the agreement of sale as well as construction agreement have been cancelled by the complainant themselves and have sought for and accepted the refund of he amounts refunded by the opposite parties no. 1 & 2, the question of breaching of the terms does not arise. In fact the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 to were ready and willing to deliver the vacant possession of the apartment and have also arranged for execution of the deed of conveyance with regard to the undivided share in the composite land, as aforementioned. The complainants who preferred to rescind from the contract now cannot harp on the agreement which have become redundant. Hence, the entire allegations have been denied by these opposite parties and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.
22. These opposite parties submits that the allegation made in paragraph no. 3,4 and 5 of the grounds are mainly dealing with the aspect of the alleged jurisdiction, counter version to the allegation made by the complainant is already made in paragraph no. 3 and 10 of this version. The opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterates that the aspect in the paragraph 5 and its sub – paragraph which clearly goes to say that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint even according to the complainants. Hence on this ground and pleading of the complainants, the very complaints is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
23. These opposite parties submits that the allegations made in paragraph no. 7,8,9 are nothing but the reverberation of the same stances of the complaint which have been countered by the opposite parties 1 & 3 in the foregoing paragraph and hence the same are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
24. These opposite parties submit that the prayer made by the complainant under (a), (b) and (c) of the complaint are denied by these opposite parties, as the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have already refunded substantial amount to the complainants and the said Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Chaudhary, wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar at their option. Further the alleged balance amount of Rs. 84,500/- is not correct and opposite parties no. 1 and 3 are due to the complainants and the said Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Chaudhary, wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar the sum of Rs. 83,998/- only, which they are ready and willing to pay provided the complainant and the Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Chaudhary, wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, returns the Original Agreement of Sale and the Contract Agreement. Further these opposite parties have not at all agreed to pay interest to the complainants or the said Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Chaudhary, wife of Priyaranjan Ashishkumar and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar, much less the alleged interest amount of 12% or 18% on the amounts received from them. The complainant being a false and frivolous one, just to avoid approaching the Civil Court to avoid payment of Court Fee and other expenses and the same has been used as short cut method by the complainants to have illegal gain through illegal means, the alleged claim of the complainants any legal cost, must less the amount of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be entertain.
25. These opposite parties submit that, even with all these versions and counters they are lackadaisical to vie the complainants. Hence, the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are herewith attaching the below mentioned demand Drafts of HDFC Bank, Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore, towards the refund of the entire balance amount due to the complainants and the said Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Chaudhary, and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar.

26. These opposite parties pray that Forum may be pleased to handover the aforementioned Demand Drafts to the complainants as well as the said Dr. (Mrs.) Alka Chaudhary, and Mr. Priya Ranjan Ashish Kumar and direct them to return back the Original Agreements of Sale and Construction Agreements all date 06.01.2007, to the opposite parties no. 1 or 2 forthwith and dismiss the above complaint with cost.

The opposite parties also cited one judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court Viz Civil Appeal No. 331 of 2007 ( H. L. Gokhle & Others Vrs Shyam ) decide on 26.09.2013 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :

It is submitted that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission. We quite see merit in this submission of Mr. Lambat particularly having seen the definition of ‘deficiency’ as quoted above. We may however, note that when it comes to “housing construction”, the same has been specifically covered under the definition of ‘service’ by an amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18^th June 199. That being the position, as far as the housing construction by sale of flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different footing. On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act.

Having noted this submission of Mr. Lambat, we must, however, record that he has fairly pointed out that subsequent to the order of the State Commission, the appellant has executed the sale deed, and the concerned plot of land has been handed over to the respondent. That being so, although we accept the legal submission made on behalf of the appellant, he cannot be granted any relief, namely to dismiss the complaint which was filed in the District Consumer Forum which has now been entertained and acted upon by the conduct of the appellant himself. The appeal is therefore disposed of with these oberservation.

We have gone through the record minutely and heard the parties at length.

The opposite parties in their written statement have raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the case on the ground that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the complaint. It is submitted by them that the entire transaction i.e. the entering into the agreement of Sale and construction agreement with respect to the subject flats were entered into between the parties at Bangalore and the said flats i.e. the property, is also situated at Bangalore. As such the Courts at Bangalore only have jurisdiction to try and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. Hence, on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the only fact that the complainants are residing at Patna does not confer jurisdiction on this forum to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

The opposite parties further submitted that, the transaction entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties and the further correspondence regarding the cancellation of the flat and seeking of refund of the amounts from the opposite parties by the complainants will not give any cause to file the consumer complaint, and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of flat/s in question which has already been cancelled in the year 2010 itself and therefore the complainants do not fall under the category of ‘Consumers’ as defined under the.

Further more, the opposite parties have expressed their readiness to refund the amount provided the complainant return back the original Agreement paper.

Having taken into consideration the entire facts we are of the view that this forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in as much as the agreement was signed in Bangalore and flat in question is also is situated at Bangalore. Mere sanction of loan from a nationalized bank at Patna is of no help to the complainant for entertaining this complaint case before this forum.

Accordingly this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

However this order will not come into way if the opposite parties are still ready to refund the balance due amount as have been stated by them in their written statement.

                                                  Member(F)                                     President