Delhi

New Delhi

CC/66/2020

Abir Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Finserv Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

12 Oct 2020

ORDER

 

 

NEW DELHI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.66/2020                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

                Mr. Abir Roy,

              S/o Ranjan Kumar Roy,

             R/o 1600 GF, Housing Development Board,

             Sec.52, Gurugram, Haryana-122011.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

BAJAJ FINSERV LTD

Regd. Office:

Mumbai-Pune Road,

             Akurdi-411035.

Maharashtra, India.

 

Also at:

Regt. Office:

Mumbai-Pune Road,

Akurdi 411035, Maharashtra, India.

 

Also at:

             4^th Floor,

Bajaj Finserv Corporate Office,

Off Pune- Ahmednagar Road,

Viman Nagar, Pune-411014.

 

Also at:

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Complex,

             Mumbai

Pune Road, Akurdi-411035

Maharashtra, India.

                                                                                                                                                        …...OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

File taken up through Video Conferencing.

2.     The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming refund of Rs.50,000/- along with 18% interest besides other relief i.e. compensation and cost of litigation.

3.     Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the counsel for complainant that correspondence was done from the office of OP which is situated at Civil Lines, Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so this Forum was competent to adjudicate the matter.

4.     In the present case, the complainant availed a Personal Flexi Loan  of INR 6,00,000/- from OP Co. through their mobile Application and first part payment of INR 10,000 for the said personal loan  was  paid by the complainant through Bajaj Finserve Mobile Application. Further, the complainant was residing at Gurugram, Haryana.  The OP in the arrays of the parties is having its office at Maharashtra and Pune. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that any correspondence was done from the office of the OP situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi,  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 on12/10/2020.        

 

 

 

( ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)

MEMBER