Delhi

New Delhi

CC/154/2019

D. DURGA PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

                                                               CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.  154/2019                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

       D. Durga Prasad

       S/o D. Marthanda Rao

       No. 36, Nangli Rajapur,

       Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013

 

                                                                                                 …...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

State Bank of Maharashtra,

Building B-29, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001

...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the son of Late D. Chandravathi and claiming the death claims of his mother as he is the only son of Late D. Chandravathi. The complainants mother has expired on 05/07/2015, who had  fixed deposits with State Bank of Maharashtra, Bellary. It is alleged that after the death of his mother complainant had approached the State Bank of Maharashtra, Bellary to get Death claims and amounts of fixed deposits. It is further alleged that the bank was negligent in service and not allowing all the claims for which  they were entitled, hence this complaint.

2. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP bank is at Connaught Place, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

3. The perusal of the file shows that the fixed deposit account is in Bellary. The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action, if any, arose at Connaught Place, New Delhi, falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this 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.”

 

 

4.  In the light of the judgment cited above and the legal position discussed, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. 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.

Announced in open Forum on  11/07/2019.

 

    (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

             PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                        (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER