Delhi

New Delhi

CC/152/2019

D. DURGA PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Citi Bank N.A. - 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.  152/2019                                                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

       D. Durga Prasad

       S/o D. Marthanda Rao

       No. 36, Nangli Rajapur,

       Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013

 

                                                                                                 …...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

Citi Bank,

Baba Kharak Singh Marg,

Shivaji Stadium Metro,

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 had salary account with the OP Bank in Bangalore. It is alleged that the complainant was employee of the company namely Prestige, Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant was Senior Manager in the company. It is further alleged that owner of the company Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd. had tie up with Citi Bank and had got approved Special, Multipurpose, Multi Benefit, Salary Linked, Zero Balance, Zero Deduction, Zero Maintenance charges, No service charges, Exclusive, Employer opened account. It is further alleged that the employer had opened an account for complainant as Multi Benefits Exclusive Account with the OP Bank. It is further alleged that all the payments related to Salary, PF, Incentives, Benefits, reimbursements, claims, etc. were being credited by employer to this account. It is further alleged that the complainant has pending payments yet to be credited by the employer in the above account of Citi bank related to PF, incentives, salary etc. The payments to the complainant are still pending and unsettled by the Company Prestige Estates Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the Citi Bank, Bangalore had never given any details inspite of repeated requests, 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 OP bank is situated at Bangalore. 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