Punjab

StateCommission

RP/11/2018

Kuldip Raj Kalia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

By Post

17 May 2018

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

 

          Revision Petition No. 11 of 2018

 

         Date of Institution :13.03.2018

                 Date of Reserved   :30.04.2018

Date of Decision : 17.05.2018

  

Kuldip Raj Kaila, aged 74 years (Senior Citizen) S/o Late Sh. Wadhawa mal R/o 196/10, Kainthan Dasuya-144205, Distt. Hoshiarpur (Punjab).

  ….Revisionist/complainant

                                                Versus

The Circle Head Punjab National Bank Circle Office improvement Trust Building Opposite Petrol Pump Chandigarh Road Hoshiarpur.    

                                                                ….Respondent/Opposite party

Revision Petition against the order dated 24.01.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

 

Quorum:-

          Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

 

Present:-

          For the petitioner                    :         None

 

Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

ORDER

                   The revisionist / complainant (hereinafter referred as revisionist) has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.461 of 2017 decided on 24.01.2018 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  It was further observed that the complainant shall be at liberty to avail any of the other remedy of his choice and/or advice as available in law and as per procedure prescribed in law.

2.                Complaint was filed by the complainant/revisionist(hereinafter referred as complainant) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant opted for voluntary retirement under the special scheme styled and named PNBEVRS Scheme-2000 and proceeded on medical leave for eye surgical operation upto 29.12.2000.  The leave was sanctioned upto 29.12.2000 and when the complainant reported at Branch Office Hazipur for resuming the duties on 30.12.2000 was refused to join. It was told that he has been retired on 20.12.2000 and when the complainant asked to provide the retirement letter, if any, but they did not provide any retirement letter. Hence, the complaint with the prayer to direct the Ops to pay Rs.94,221/- being the reimbursement of the hospitalization expenditure and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint.  

 3.               The revision petition has been received by post.  Intimation was sent to the petitioner on 16.03.2018 to appear on 10.04.2018 and again on 10.04.2018 to appear on 30.04.2018. The petitioner did not appear before the Bench.  

4.                Since the complaint has been decided by passing the final order in it, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable and only appeal was maintainable against this order.

5.                The revision petition is maintainable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act which provide where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  Therefore, it deals only with the jurisdiction lapse on the part of the District Forum.  We do not see any jurisdictional error on the part of the District Forum.  Even if, this revision petition is taken as an appeal.  The District Forum prima facie found that the present complaint stood filed against the circle of head of the OP party Bank at its Circle Office Hoshiapur.  The cause of action took place at Hajipur Branch, Hoshiarpur and further the complainant also resided at # 196/10, Kainthan, Dasuya (District Hoshiarpur) all within the competent jurisdiction of the local Consumer Forum at Hoshiarpur and thus the present complaint shall not lie before any other consumer for a except the one located at the District Head Quarters at Gurdaspur.  

 11.  Jurisdiction of the District Forum

          2.      A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-

1. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily or (carries on business of has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or
2. Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or {carries on business or has a branch office}, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides, or {carry on business or have a branch office}, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

         

6.                We are further fortified with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in the case of Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009, CPC 379 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that policy insurance was obtained at Ambala covering risk of Godown at Ambala-fire destroyed insured stock laying down there- no cause of action arose at Chandigarh though Company has branch office at Chandigarh- Commission at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Since, the cause of action arose at Ambala the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana           along will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Similarly, when no effective part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Gurdaspur.

7.                As such the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Hoshiarpur.           

8.      Sequel to the above, we find no merit in the revision petition as such the revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine.

9.      Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 

                                                                 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

                                                                   Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

                                                                  

May 17 ,2018                                           (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

PK/-                                                                         Member