Today is fixed for hearing as to the point of maintainability of the case.  The State Bank of India filed a written objection as regards to the maintainability of the case.  It is to be mentioned that this Forum suomoto fixed the date for hearing as to the maintainability of this case.

            In this case it is to be mentioned that O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Banking Ombudsman Office filed a petition for expunging their names from the petition of complaint as because the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P. Nos 4 and 5. They do not provide any service to any customer that means O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 are not a service provider to any customer.

            Heard both sides.

            The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the complainant is a resident of Mothabari under the District, Malda and is a consumer of Indian Oil Domestic Gas Connection No. 7044044666 and the name of the distributor is Niyamadpur Indane Gramin Vitrak, Gouripur, Amrity, Dist. Malda. The complainant came to know that a fake account in his name was opened from the Indane Distributor with the State Bank of India, Dalhousie Sq Branch, Kolkata and the complainant came to know such fact on 30/03/2019. Thereafter, the complainant informed the matter to the regional business office State Bank Of India, Region -1, R.K. Pally, Malda and also informed to the General Manager, State Bank of India Samriddhi Bhavan and also informed the matter to the Banking Ombudsman Office at Calcutta and New Delhi. But ultimately there was no fruitful result and the complainant was deprived of getting his subsidy account of the gas connection of the Govt. of India.

             At the time of argument authorized agent of O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 argued that the Ombudsman did not provide any service to any customer and there is no relationship with the complainant as customer and no service is provided.

            According to the argument of O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 they have been made unnecessary party. So there name may be expunged. Moreover, if there is a deficiency of service that was not on the part of O.P. Nos. 4 and 5. So their name may be expunged.

            On the other hand the Ld. Sr. Lawyer Mr. Narendra Mohan Majumder on behalf of the State Bank of India argued that the case is not maintainable as because the bank account with the State Bank of India is lying at Calcutta, Dalhousie Branch. So this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the case.

             It is a fact that the Bank Account was opened at Calcutta, Dalhousie Branch and the main allegation of the complainant is with the State Bank of India.

          According to the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the jurisdiction of this Forum will lie where the O.P. resides or carrying his business. It is a fact that the State Bank of India has the several branches within the jurisdiction of Malda District. But in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided in Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by the Hon’ble Justice Markandey Catju and Ashoke Kr. Ganguly wherein it was decided that the Branch Office would mean the Branch Office where the cause of action arose.

          According to the complaint case the cause of action arose at Dalhousie Branch, Calcutta. So this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the case.

         Moreover, on perusal of the document it is found that the complainant had the account with the United Bank of India, Mothabari Branch but the United Bank has not been made party in this case. Definitely, it will attack the jurisdiction of this Forum.

           So on considering such facts and circumstances the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the State Bank of India is quite convincing.

           In this regard the Ld.Lawyer of the State Bank of India refers the case law reported in a Consumer Protection Judgement, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 1(2003) CPJ 276. By that case law the Ld.Lawyer of the State Bank of India wants to impress upon this Forum that withdrawal from account on the basis of forged cheque the Consumer Forum has got no jurisdiction to try  this case. Only the Civil Court can try the case as regard to the forged matter. But on perusal of this case law it is found that the fact of the reported case is not similar to the instant case as because the money was withdrawn on the basis of forged cheques.  But the present case is not like that. So this case law is not applicable for the instant case.

         But the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the State Bank of India is quiet convincing.

      As regards to the argument of the O.P. Nos. 4, 5 it is found that they are not the service provider and there is not claim against the O.P. Nos. 4,5 for Deficiency of Service and Negligent Act. In the petition of complaint the complainant has clearly stated that the acts of omission of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 have amounted to deficiency in service and Negligent Act as such they have been made unnecessary party and when it is found that the case is not maintainable in this Forum

     So the prayer for expunging the name of O.P. No. 4 is meaningless as and when the entire case is not maintainable.

Hence,                       ordered

that the case be and the same is not maintainable in this Forum and the same is rejected on contest against the all O.Ps.

        It is to be mentioned that how a fake account was opened with the State Bank of India Dalhousie Branch, Calcutta in the name of the complainant. Though the complainant did not open any account. As such D.I.G., C.I.D. West Bengal is requested to investigate the matter, how the account was opened with the State Bank of India, Dalhousie Branch to deprive the Customer from getting the subsidy to an Indane Gas Customer.

      Let a copy of this order along with Xerox copy of Bank Account of S.B.I. Dalhousie Branch be sent to the DIG, CID West Bengal Bhabani Bhavan, Calcutta for taking necessary action.