Date of filing: 26/12/2016 Date of Disposal: 30/10/2017
Complainant: Rameah Kumar Ashdia, 44, Pratap Nagar, Dadabadi, KOTA – 324 009 (Rajasthan).
Opposite Party: 1. Registered Address: Sea Realty Ltd., R. S. Road NH – 60, Village & PO: Haripur, Distt. Burdwan – 713 378 (WB).
2. Corporate Office Address: Sea Realty Ltd., 335, Netaji Subhas road, HOWRAH – 711 101 (WB).
3. Branch Office Address: Sea Realty Limited, 6, Sindhi Colony, 11 Floor, Opp. Shiv Pooja Marriage Hall, Near Sindhi School, KOTA (Rajasthan).
Present : Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Roy).
Hon’ble Member : Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: In Person.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Sanyuk Banerjee.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging falsehood, malpractice and breach of contracts by the Ops as they have not returned back his deposited amount and have not sanctioned his loan application.
The case of the complainant is that one “Vishal Garg” came to his residence and insisted on him with the commitments that he will be responsible for refund of his deposited funds in case of failure of company and opened a Recurring Deposit A/c. ID No. SEA/RM/9179/13 on 18.12.2014 for denomination of Rs. 3,000=00 in terms of 36 months. Since 18.1.2014 the complainant has been depositing his installment of Rs. 3,000=00 each month in the office premises. During throughout month of August 2016, the complainant found Kota Branch closed and lodged complaint to Company Head Office through email dated 14th & 17th August 2016 and company responded him through email dated 25.08.2016 with the comments that “please contact Mr. Vishal Garg by whom your account was opened”. On several calls on Mr. Garg did not respond. But surprisingly Mr. Garg appeared to my residence and reported that he was out of Kota and again carrying on responsibility as per commitment dated 18.12.2014 received from me two installments of Rs. 3,000=00 each and deposited on the same day into company bank account. On doubtful conditions, the complainant reached to office premises to search out feasibility of company, where outside of Kota closed branch premises found many clients weeping and on his asking they reported that they have already submitted their due FDRs before two or three months to Kota Branch head Mr. Vishal Garg but do not happen to receive matured proceeds up till now. Thereafter relating failure commitments of company and investigated residential address of Vishal Garg the complainant reached there and he demanded refund of his deposited amount but he refused to pay back and on his advice the complainant submitted his loan application along with original pass book posted funds of Rs. 66,000=00. Then Mr. Garg instantly forwarded on line to his company head office. He also repotted the complainant that company has not been paid my salary since January, 2016 and deposited sum of clients on my behalf company is not paying back to clients on due dates and documents also are in possession of company. Since submission of his loan application on 03.10.2016 beyond contract note period of 15 days has elapsed but the complainant does not happen to receive his applicable funds of loan of Rs. 66,000=00 up till now. Mr. Garg also reported him that his electronic (computer) running power password has been discarded. The complainant requested company Head office to let him know Kota branch new location address, grant of loan of Rs. 66,000=00 against submitted loan application dated 03.10.2016 as well as any substitute representative in lieu of Mr. Garg and complained through emails on 12.7.2016, 05.10.2016, 19.10.2016, 14.8.2016, 17.8.2016, 24.8.2016 05.10.2016, 14.10.2016, 21.10.2016 & 24.10.2016. Out of all authority of company no one responded him. But responded his email dated 21.10.2016 vide their email dated 24.10.2016 with the comments reading as “please don’t send this type of mail to our Email ID:careho@seahamarapariwar.com” whereas the same email ID has been narrated on company product circular letter. Under the circumstances, company clearly reflects to not take liabilities and plays role of malpractice and breach of contracts. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 66,000=00 as deposited by him with interest and close his account.
The complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his petition of contract. On the contrary the case of the OP-1 is that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable as this ld. Forum does not have the competent territorial jurisdiction and as the cause of action of the case under reply has arisen allegedly at Kota, Rajasthan and the Branch Office means the Branch Office where the cause of action has arisen. This OP has further stated that granting of loan to anybody is the discretion of this OP and to that effect this OP cannot be forced in any manner whatsoever. This OP has further stated that at no point of time this OP had any scheme like that of running any Recurring deposit from any person in any manner whatsoever. It is true that Mr. Vishal Garg had been the employee of this Company – OP and he had access of Seals and Stamps of the OP – Company. For his non-working capability as per Company standard he has been sacked from the employment by the month of January, 2016 and as such in collusion with the complainant or the complainant in collusion with Mr. Vishal Garg, by abusing and misusing the seals and stamps of the OP- Company, is trying to hamper the reputation of the OP- Company by way of making out the story as alleged in the complaint. This OP – Company is now carrying an internal investigation as against said Mr. Vishal Garg and his associates, if any, and upon completion of such internal investigation the OP-Company will initiate appropriate legal (Civil) or (Criminal) action as required as against all persons found involved in hampering the reputation and goodwill o this OP-company. This OP also submits that the complainant has neither pleaded deficient in service nor pleaded unfair in trade practice as against this OP and as such this instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost to this OP.
It is seen from the order No. 3, dated 06.02.2017 that two unserved envelopes have returned in respect of the Ops with the endorsement as “not known”. So the complainant was directed to take appropriate steps in respect of service of notice upon the Ops and date was fixed on 27.02.2017 for appropriate steps y the complainant. On 27.02.2017 no step was taken from the side of the complainant. The OP-1 appears and filed written version. The complainant was directed to show cause as to why the name o the OP-2&3 shall not be expunged for non-supplying the requisites by the complainant and date was fixed on 21.3.2017 for showing cause by the complainant. On 21.3.2017 none appears from the side of the complainant and no step on his behalf has been taken. Therefore, the names of the OP-2&3 are expunged from the complaint. Hence, the case is contested by the OP-1 only.
Decision with reasons:
The argument is heard one sided only advanced by the P-1, as the complainant is absent at the time of argument. Be it mentioned that the complainant was absent on several occasions and even did not contest the written statement field by the OP-1.
Before going into the merit of this complaint we are to adjudicate as to whether this complaint is filed within the territorial jurisdiction or not as per Section 11 in the C.P. Act, 1986.
For Territorial Jurisdiction of the District Forum Section 11 (2) states-
(a) 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 resides or 2[carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or
(b) 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 3[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 reside, or 4[carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
The fact remains that the complainant invested his money in the company at the branch office at Kota, Rajasthan. The complainant has made its corporate office as OP-2 in this complaint which is in the district of Howrah, West Bengal. The complainant has also made the branch office of this company which is at district Burdwan, West Bengal. The complainant applied for loan from his deposited money at the branch office at Kota, Rajasthan.
The cause of action, occurred to the complainant, either at the place, wherefrom the transaction was done or at the place, where his claim was held to be not payable. No doubt, the Company, from which the complainant opened the recurring deposit, has got its Branch Office at Burdwan, West Bengal, yet that alone could not furnish cause of action, to the complainant, to file a complaint, at Burdwan, West Bengal.
In this respect there is a landmark judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV(2009) CPJ 40(SC), wherein the Apex Court held as under:
10. The perusal of the facts of Sonic Surgicals case (supra), clearly goes to reveal that the Policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala, the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In Sonic Surgicals case (supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Commission, at Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above. The principle of law, laid down, in Sonic Surgicals case (supra), is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
The OP-1 raised only the question of Territorial Jurisdiction during his argument.
In view of the above judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not filed within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. So this complaint should be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint No. 244/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP-1 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
