Delhi

New Delhi

CC/25/2021

Arvind Kumar Tiwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2021

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

 

 

Case No.CC. 25/2021                                                                         Dated:

In the matter of:

Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari,

S/o. Shri Paras Nath Tiwari,

R/o. A1/407 Summer Palms Sector,

86 Faridabad, Haryana-121002.                                      ……..COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

 

1. Standard Chartered Bank,

10. Sansad Marg, Janpath,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Standard Chartered Bank,

Customer Care Unit,

19 Rajaji Salai,

              Chennai-600001.

                                                                                                                                                  …........OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

File taken up through Video Conferencing.

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in services and claiming a sum of  Rs.49,000/- besides other relief.

Argument on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard. It is submitted by the complainant that office of OP is situated at New Delhi-110001 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so, this Commission is competent to adjudicate the matter.

The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action accrued at the office of the OP at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

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.”

 

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^nd February, 2021.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                       

 

(R.C. MEENA)

MEMBER