(Date:-23.09.2015)  Per:- Hon'able Mr. Sanjay P. Borwal, President

JUDGMENT

Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :-

1                 The Complainant filed a complaint under section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party. 

2                 The Complainant no.1 is an engineer and working in a Multinational Company, Pune and Complainant no.2 is mother of the Complainant no.1. She is an advocate and has signed on the Complainants education form for collateral security.  The Complainant no.1 got admission in above institute on merit and had taken educational loan from SBI, Hinjewadi, i.e. the Opponent no.1 and obtain loan in the year, 2007.  The Opponent had a tie up with Symbiosis Institute for giving Educational loan to all the Students who took admission for the MBA course on merit.  The Opponent had offered 0.5% less interest on educational loan to these merit students (i.e.13.75% p.a. instead of 14.25%p.a.) for their achievement of getting admission to this esteemed institute SCMGRD, Pune.  The Opponent sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by taking signature on the Annexure-A loan from under SBI Scholar Education Loan Scheme. They also take signature of guardian as collateral security as he is residence of Kolhapur and if Student fails to repay the loan the liability would be shifted on Complainant no.2.  and he had signed and sent that form to the Bank. The loan was to be paid after the completion of the Course either in installments or in one-time within 5 years.  The Complainant no.1’s account number is 30255943543.  The Opponent sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,000/- but paid as per the requirement of the college Semister wise i.e. half yearly.  The mode of Payment is mentioned in the account statement.  The Opponent has given amount of Rs.4,57,000/- in installments to college till the completion of the Complainants MBA Course. The Complainant no.1’s father Bharat D. Rajepandhare was an NRI and owns an agricultural land in village Pimpla, Tal.Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad and having his account in Bank of Maharashtra Branch :Tamalwadi : Dist.: Osmanabad.  His bank account number is :3812 which is still operational. The Complainant no.1 gave a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.07.2009 for repayment of the Educational Loan, as bank name – Bank of Maharashtra, Brach-Tamalwadi, cheq  ue no. 0788154 and date 10.07.2009. The cheque was given in the name of the Complainant mentioned his Loan Account number to the Opponent no.1.  The cheque was received by the bank and was signed and stamped by the Bank Manager Mr.Rahate with the stamp stating Payee’s Account will be credited on Realisation – For State Bank of India. The Complainant was under the impression that the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was repaid, so on 12.08.2010,  the Complainant went to pay the remaining second installment of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The Opponent gave the first cheque no.0788154 without memo or any remark starting that the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch :Tamalwadi, Tal:Tujlapur, Dist.Osmanabad count not be traced. The Complainant asked for memo along with cheque the Opponent clearly  denied to give the memo.  Complainant gave the cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- and went taking the first cheque. Complainant repaid the loan by giving third cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.09.2010. 

3                  On 11.12.2012, the Complainant went to the Opponent no.1’s Bank Mr.Kulkarni, Branch Manager tell Complainant to pay Rs.64,397/- as remaining loan amount.  The Complainant gave a written complaint on 15.12.2012  questioning why memo was not given along with the cheque ?  The Complainant had repay the loan in one year after completing the course and he had paid Rs.5,50,000/- within a span of one month in such circumstances bank is wrong in calculation of interest.  On 17.01.2013, the Complainant gave legal notice to the Opponent no.1 but the Opponent not answered nor had gave written explanation. The Opponent Recovery Department was harassing the Complainant by calling from various members.

4                  In April, 2013, Complainant asked for a car loan to State Bank of Mysor, Bank refused to give loan and the reason that the Complainant’s CIBIL (Credit Investigation Bureau Limited) rating is low.  The CIBIL rating was lowered because of the Opponent no.1 so the Complainant could not get car loan. The Complainant had applied for a credit cards which got rejected only because of lower of CIBIL rating.  Thus Complainant filed the complaint prays the Complainant’s loan has already been paid due to deficiency in service of bank remaining loan amount of Rs.64,397/-  is  to be declared as wrong and illegal.  And compensation mentioned in para. no.23 of the complaint may kindly be granted and directed the Opponent Bank to inform CIBIL and update the Complainant no.1 credit rating. Along with the complaint five documents were filed.

5                 The Opponent had filed written version to complaint. The Opponent filed their written version of defence and denied the allegations in the complaint. The Opponent are not accepted the complaint, since the Complainant wants to hide some of the facts of the case.   The complaint is not tenable in the eyes of law liable dismissed with costs. The Opponent had denied all the allegation in this complaint.  The Opponent further says that the Cause of Action as well as the allegations regarding Deficiency in Service made by the Complainant in Para no.24 and 25 respectively of the original complaint is altogether denied by the present Opponent bank.  The cause of action has never ever arose in the present case and as mentioned earlier, the present Opponent has not provided any Deficiency in service to the present Complainant.  Here one aspect is worth to mention that, all the transactions regarding outstanding loan of the Complainant, his execution of loan agreement, his partial re-payment of loan, as well as further communications regarding within the jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Pune.  It is rather unimaginable as to why and on what basis the present complaint has been filed in Kolhapur before this Hon’ble Forum.  The complaint of the Complainant is also silent on the jurisdiction clause.  Hence, if the present complaint is read cohesively and as it is, it can be asserted that, the present Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and dispose of the present complaint. Hence primarily on this ground the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

6                 We heard the Complainant and gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents filed by the Complainant in support of this complaint, bank statement, relevant documents, emails, photocopy of cheque  and supporting affidavit, the Opponent written version and documents.

7                  We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the arguments submitted by the Opposite Party. Without going into the merits of the complaint, we may like to decide the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction.  We may observe that the Complainant had borrowed the Education Loan from the Opposite Party no.1 Bank which is situated at Pune. All transaction about the Educational Loan were took place at Pune.   The Complainant is alleging deficiency in service by the Bank Complainant has brought this fact to the notice of the Opposite Party at Pune All transactions were took place at Pune and alleged cheque which was also given by the Complainant no.1 to the Opposite Party no.1 i.e. Pune Branch and remaining amount of Loan was paid at Pune Branch.  A perusal of the said educational loan that none of the cause of action took place in the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is a settled law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2010(1) CLT 252 in which the expression of branch office has been held to mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  So, without going into the merits of the complaint, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to try and decide the present complaint. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the Court / Forum of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.  The time consumed in persecuting the present complaint will be excluded for the sake of limitation. Hence order,

ORDER

(1)     Complaint is hereby rejected.

(2)     No order as to costs.

(3)     Certified copies of the order to be furnished to the parties free of costs.