05-05-2015 - Heard Mr. Jaiswal learned counsel appearing for the O.P. – Petitioner (the Bank for short).

2.       This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2014 passed in complaint case No. 133 of 2011 by learned District Consumer Forum, Ranchi, rejecting the objection raised by the Bank with regard to the territorial jurisdiction.

3.       Mr. Jaiswal submitted as follows. The Complainant has a saving bank account at State Bank of India, Ekma Branch, District Saran which falls under the Zonal Office Patna, but only because the complainant uses ATM Machine at Ranchi, the complaint case was not maintainable at Ranchi. He relied on certain judgments.

4.       He also produced the copy of the order dated 17.08.2011 and submitted that at the stage of admission, the Bank was not before the District Forum and therefore it could raise the objection of territorial jurisdiction, only after it’s appearance before the District Forum.

5.       According to the complainant, he settled at Ranchi after his retirement. He continued to maintain one of his Saving Bank Account with State Bank of India, Ekma Branch, District Saran (Bihar), which he operated from Ranchi, as per the Core Banking facility. He continued with the said Bank account for the purpose of automatic deposit of his pension. He was provided with an ATM Card which he was using from SBI ATM centers at Ranchi and Hatia. He found certain amount missing from his account. He asked local branch of the Bank for up to date statement, from which he was surprised to know that an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was illegally siphoned from his account between 08.08.2010 to 23.01.2011, using Internet Transaction about which he never requested/opted. He promptly brought this matter to the notice of the Branch Manager, Ekma (O.P. 2) with a copy to Mumbai, Chennai and New Delhi head offices including Ranchi Zonal office (O.P. 1) through post. He apprehended involvement of the Bank employees. According to the complainant the cause of action arose at Ranchi where he got knowledge of the fraudulent transfer.

6.       In our opinion, even if it is accepted that the objection of territorial jurisdiction could not be gone into at the time of admitting the complaint, the other reason given by learned District Forum that part of cause of action arose at Ranchi, appears to be correct.

7.       After the Core Banking system has been introduced, the complaint could operate his Bank account or use ATM from the place he is residing after his retirement. The State Bank of India has got it’s branch and ATM at Hatia/Ranchi.

          The Zonal offices established by the Bank, is for their administrative purposes, with which the customer/the account holder is not concerned.

8.       The judgments relied by Mr. Jaiswal are of no help to the Bank in as much as the facts and circumstances in those cases are different. More over none of the judgment has taken into consideration the system of Core Banking. The Supreme Court has said that the judgments are to be read in the fact situation obtaining in the case and not as statutes. In the case reported in II (2004) CPJ 36 (NC) Arup Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. Kundu Tirtha Special & Anr.; and III (2001) CPJ 268 (Patna) Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. District Rural Development Agency, it was held that only because drafts were purchased, it will not confer territorial jurisdiction. In the case reported in IV (2008) CPJ 159 (NC) R.B. Jagdish Prasad & Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the whole cause of action arose at Muzaffarnagar and therefore it was held that complaint could not be filed at Delhi only because the head office of Insurance Company was situated at Delhi. Similarly in the case reported in III (2003) CJP 163 (Delhi) Gopal Dutta Joshi Vs. Chief Station Master North-East Railways, it was held that the suitcase was stolen from the platform of Guwahati Railway Station and therefore only because the head quarter of the Railways was at Delhi, Delhi Forum had no territorial jurisdiction. In the case reported in 2010 (1) CPR 28 (SC) Sonic Surgical Vs. Notional Insurance Company Ltd. the fire broke down at the godown of the complainant at Ambala but the claim was filed at Chandigarh and in that situation it was held that Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction, as no part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. But in the present case part of cause of action arose at Ranchi and therefore Ranchi District Forum has territorial jurisdiction.

          Thus we find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

     Ranchi,    

          Dated: 05-05-2015