Delhi

New Delhi

CC/654/2016

Shankar Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Union Of India - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/654/2016                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

MR. SHANKAR LAL,

R/O C-231, INDIRA PARK,

NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI

(AND AT PRESENT POSTED AS

NAIB NAZIR NAZARAT BRANCH

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,

NEW DELHI.

 

              ……..COMPLAINANT

    

VERSUS

  

1.  UNION OF INDIA

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

(3^rd FLOOR, GOVT. OF INDIA

JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,

SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001;

 

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

STATE BANK BHAWAN,

MADAM CAMA ROAD,

NARIMAN POINT,

MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)0400021;

 

3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

(HEAD OFFICE-DELHI)

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

11,SANSAD MARG,

PARLIAMENT STREET,

NEW DELHI-110001;

 

4. THE MANAGER,

STATE BANK OF INDIA

DWARKA COURT COMPLEX,

SECTOR-10, DWARKA,

NEW DELHI-110075;

 

5. THE MANAGER,

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

UTTAM NAGAR BRANCH,

NEW DELHI-1100059;

 

6. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,

(VIGILANCE)

POLICE HEADQUARTER,

ITO, NEW DELHI-110002;

 

7. THE SHO,

PS BINDAPUR,

NEW DELHI-110059.

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

MEMBER: H M VYAS

 

The complainant has moved this complaint concerning wrong transactions at ATM Machine installed at Vani Vihar, Uttam Nagar against his saving account with the State Bank of India at Dwarka Court Branch. He made police complaint to SHO, Police Station, Bindapur also. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction he states that the Regional Headquartes of the State Bank is in New Delhi and its branch at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi is under it.

                In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, relied upon by Ld. Counsel for OP-1, the following observations were made:

 

“Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79] In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

 

In view of the above decision of the Apex Court we are of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction as neither the bank where complainant’s account is, situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor any cause of action arose under jurisdiction of this Forum. As such we hold that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complaint is , therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant with all annexures against acknowledgement with liberty to file before competent Forum in accordance with law.

 

 

 

This order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in).

A copy of this order be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on …………………….

 

 

 

 

 (S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)                                     (NIPUR CHANDANA)

                                                             MEMBER                                                          MEMBER