Haryana

StateCommission

A/408/2016

RAJ KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

OTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJ KUMAR RANA

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   408 of 2016

Date of Institution:   10.05.2016

Date of Decision :    24.10.2016

 

Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Sita Ram, Resident of House No.69, Village Nanheda Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO 153-155, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

2.      Farm Track Tractor Agency Kala Amb Road, Near Maruti Agency, Naraingarh, District Ambala, through its Proprietor/partner.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri R.K. Rana, Advocate with appellant-Raj Kumar.

Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate with Sh. Gagandeep Singh Brar, Senior Manager for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2-performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   Raj Kumar-complainant/appellant, filed complaint averring that he purchased a tractor from Farm Track Tractor Agency-Opposite Party No.1 by raising loan of Rs.2,31,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank’)-Opposite Party No.1.  The loan was to be repaid by the complainant in 12 Half Yearly Instalments of Rs.32,760/- each. Total amount payable was Rs.3,93,123/- up to 11.02.2016. He paid Rs.3,95,000/- to the bank and was paying the instalments continuously, however the bank was threatened to take the tractor in possession on the allegations that the complainant was defaulter in paying the instalments.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Vide order dated February 26^th, 2016 the District Forum dismissed the complaint at preliminary stage for want of territorial jurisdiction observing as under:-

“Heard on admission of complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that the main grievance of the complainant is against OP No.1 Bank having its office at Chandigarh but the Op No.2 has been arrayed as party to the complaint only to establish the jurisdiction of this Forum whereas complainant has not sought any relief against him. As such, in light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010(1) Consumer Law Today page 252, we hold that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction and thus we have no option except to dismiss the same in limine. However, the complainant is granted liberty to file the complaint in the Forum having the jurisdiction…..”

3.                Counsel for the parties heard. File perused.

4.                Though documentation for loan was done purporting the loan to have been released by Chandigarh Branch of the bank. However, it is not disputed by the bank that its representative sits at the agency of the opposite party No.2 and loan was advanced in the agency premises. Undisputedly, the agency from which the tractor was purchased is located at Naraingarh which falls within the jurisdiction of District Forum at Ambala. Thus, certainly the District Forum, Ambala would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

5.                There is another aspect that the complainant was advanced loan of Rs.2,31,000/- and the amount repayable was Rs.3,93,123/- up to 16.02.2016. It has also been admitted by the representative of the bank that till now the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,95,621/-. Threat to repossess the tractor was extended to the complainant at Naraingarh.  Therefore, considering the cumulative circumstances, the cause of action did arise within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Ambala.

6.                Hence, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum with the direction to decide the complaint expeditiously preferably within a period of three months in accordance with rules.   

7.                 The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Ambala, on 16.11.2016.

 

Announced: 24.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL