DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 338/2019
Mr. Harsh Parekh
Son of Late Shri Mohit Parekh
Resident of B-30 & B-32, Gujarat Apartments,
Parwana Marg,
Opposite Pushpanjali Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034. ….Complainant
Versus
- Reserve Bank of India
Through its General Manager (Legal)
Having its Regional Office at:-
6, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
- M/s ICICI Bank Limited.
Through its Branch Manager,
Having its Branch office at:
A-25, Pushpanjali Enclave,
Saraswati Vihar, Outer Ring Road,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 05.12.2019
Date of Order : 12.03.2020
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
ORDER
- Shri Harsh Parekh (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) inter alia pleading therein that he has an account No. 015401516991 with ICICI Bank Ltd. at A-25, Pushpanjali Enclave, Saraswati Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (in short OP-2). On 12.09.2019 certain transactions took place on the complainant’s ICICI Bank Rubyx International VISA Debit Card without the knowledge of the complainant. Transactions are detailed in para-4 of the complaint.
After transactions took place illegally on 12.09.2019 the complainant was alerted by an SMS that an amount of Rs.21,912/- had been debited from his ATM-cum-debit card.
- Complainant never authorized the transactions detailed in para-4 of the complaint. Two service requests i.e. SR634404752 and SR637038985 were generated by the customer service team of OP-2 and conveyed to the complainant regarding online illegal transactions done in his account. Subsequently on 06.11.2019 the complainant got a mail that a sum of Rs.1,248/- had been credited to his saving bank account with OP-2. On 16.11.2019 the complainant got another mail that only Rs.2,061/- had been credited to his saving bank account and rest of the four transactions amounting to Rs.18,603/- as balance disputed amount had been declined without assigning any reason.
On 13.09.2019 complaint was made to the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police’s Outer District under the DCP (Outer District) of Delhi and a diary No. 7021 was given as acknowledgment. As the police investigation continues the bank appears to have washed its hands on the illegal loss to the complainant. The bank is not cooperating with police in any manner whatsoever. OP-2 has not shown any CCTV footage to anybody so that the culprits can be caught. It shows that the culprits are hand-in-glove with the staff of OP-2 who takes advantage of data leaks in such an illegal manner.
On these allegations complainant has sought payment of Rs.18,603/07 with interest 18% per annum from the date of debit of unauthorized electronic transactions done in the saving account of the complainant i.e. from 12.09.2019 till realization; to pay reversal of debit card fees of Rs.706/82: Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation.
- The case is at admission stage.
- Complainant’s banker OP-2 is situated at A-25, Pushpanjali Enclave, Saraswati Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. Regional office of only RBI (OP-1) is situated within our territorial jurisdiction.
- We asked learned counsel for the complainant as to how the case is filed against OP-1. He submitted that role of OP-1 comes into picture when guidelines issued by it are not adhered by Banks and therefore it should have initiated action against a defaulter of its rules and regulation. He submitted that OP-1 is Controlling Authority which issues license to banks to operate as a banker.
- Simply because RBI is Controlling / Regulatory Authority, it does not mean that any cause of action accrued against RBI to file the present case against it. It is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Cause of action is against OP-2 whose office is situated at Pitampura.
- Reference may be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (infra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
8. Our State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. First Appeal No. 488/2017 vide order dated 01.11.2017 held that:
‘’6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 in RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decions of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA 216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other and decision in Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.
7. The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area. Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.
8. Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.
9. Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012. The said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12. National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons. On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums of Delhi was a matter of great public importance. Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification. Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance. National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit. Deptt of Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.
10. The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit. It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.
11. It is a different matter that on 09.09.14 none appeared for the petitioner in National Commission and the petition was dismissed for non prosecution. But still the fact remains that National Commission took a serious view about not following the notification defining territorial jurisdiction. The same leads us to hold that notification has to be complied.’’
9. Our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 date of decision : 09.02.2017 held that:
‘’2. We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission. The project is located at Gurgaon. The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI. The name of branch is conspicuously missing. Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch. He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account. So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark. Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction. He relied upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office. Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India. There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act. Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.
3. Similar question reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, IV (2009) CPJ 40. In the said judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it could not agree with counsel of the appellant. It was held that interpretation has to be given to amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence. If contention of counsel for appellant is accepted, it would mean that even if cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or any where in India where branch office of insurance company is situated. That would lead to absurd consequence and lead to bench hunting. The expression on branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. No doubt said interpretation would be departing from plain and literal word of section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
4. If branch office in clause 17 (2)(b) has to read alongwith cause of action, the same interpretation should apply to section 17(1)(a) so as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." alongwith cause of action.’’
10. Complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction within 4 weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 12.03.2020
