Delhi

New Delhi

CC/503/2013

Satish Kumar Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.503/2013                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

               Sh. Satish Kumar Aggarwal,

                3/91, Nehru Gali,

               Vishwas Nagar,

               Shahdara, Delhi-32.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

                AXIS BANK,

              Through its Manager,

              Netaji Subhash Marg,

             Opp. Golcha Cinema,

             Darya ganj, Delhi-02.

 

          Also At:

         1^st Floor, Stateman House,

          Barakhamba Road,

         New Delhi.

                                                                                                                                                                                …...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is having an account bearing No.840219876 with OP along with ATM facilities. On 12.09.2011, the complainant purchased shoes from M/s Aggarwal Shoe Palace, Shahdara, Delhi for a sum of Rs.4800/- through debit card but when he swiped his card in the machine, the transaction got failed.  Thereafter, only for checking purpose, the complainant made the payment of Rs.10/- through the debitcard in question, the transaction got success at this time, hence he made the payment of Rs.4800/- through this card, this transaction was also success.  After some time when the  complainant  got his statement of account from the OP he was shocked to know that a sum of Rs.4800/- has been deducted twice from his account.  The complainant wanted to pay an amount of Rs.4800/- through his debit card but the OP deducted twice i.e. Rs.9600/-.  The complainant immediately wrote a letter to the OP in this regard but all in vain.  This act of the OP are clearly deficiency in services and unfair trade practices, therefore, complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP denied any deficiency in service on their part. OP has strongly challenged the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, hence needs to be decided first.      It is submitted by the OP that merely by writing one branch address of the OP i.e. Connaught Place, New Delhi, in the arrays of the party, the complainant cannot invoke, the  jurisdiction of this Forum, as the said CP Branch is neither the concerned branch nor the alleged transaction had entered into the said branch.

3.     In the present case, the complainant purchased the shoes from M/s Aggarwal Shoe Palace, Shahdara, Delhi which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has  his saving bank account with the branch of the OP situated at Darya Ganj, Delhi. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that either the shoes were purchased from the shop falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum, moreover, the branch of the OP situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi was not his home branch from where the transaction was alleged to be tookplace,  hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum.

4. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

5.     Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above.  Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the

case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 22/10/2019

 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                     (H M VYAS)

                        MEMBER                                                    MEMBER