Delhi

New Delhi

CC/936/2012

Synapse Communications Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. American Express Banking Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

                           CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                        (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                         ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                              NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.936/2012                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

        M/s Synapse Communications Pvt. Ltd.,

         391, Zakir Nagar, 2^nd Floor,

         New Delhi-25.

 

         Branch office at:

 

        F-18, Sec. XI, Noida.

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

          M/s AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORP.,

          Cyber City Tower “C”, DLF Building No.8,

          Sec. 25, DLF City Ph.II,

          Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

 

                                                                                                                                                                 ….......OPPOSITE PARTY

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services against OP.

2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  OP has strongly challenged the issue of territorial jurisdiction, hence, needs to be decided first. It is stated on behalf of OP that the transaction in question was took place at the Branch Office of the OP located at Gurgaon.  The address of the OP mentioned in the arrays of parties is also at Gurgaon.   Moreover, there is no averment that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence the present complaint be dismissed on this sole ground. 

3.     The complainant in its rejoinder simply denied the averments of the OP regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. He has failed to place on record any document which shows that the transaction was ever carried                           with the office of the OP falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. 

 4.    Admittedly, in the present case, the card was issued from  Gurgaon office of the OP. The  correspondence exchanged between the parties was also with the Gurgaon Office of the OP Co, hence, no cause of action or part of it arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“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) t he 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.”

 

 

5.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 21/11/2019.

 

 

 ( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                     MEMBER                                                    MEMBER