DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.180/2018
Lallian Sangi
W/o Felix
R/o H/No. 3287, First Floor,
Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008
….Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India (Head Office)
Through its General Manager
11, Sansad Marg,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 26.06.18
Date of Order : 29.04.21
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
- Complainant, Ms. Lallian Sangi is having a Saving Bank Account No. 30381962426 at Delhi University Branch, Utility Centre, DU, Delhi-110007. It is complainant’s case that through a fraudulent withdrawal an amount of Rs.1,84,587/- were withdrawn from her Savings bank account via ATM transactions done in Mumbai, whereas the ATM card issued by the OP was with the complainant.
- OP resisted the complaint and filed reply to the complaint objecting inter-alia the maintainability of the complaint in the present Commission on account of territorial jurisdiction.
- Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit are filed on behalf of the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Neetoo Seniaray Deputy Branch Manager at SBI DU Branch Delhi is filed on behalf of OP. Written arguments are filed by the parties. Submissions made by the Complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused carefully.
- Before going into the merit of the case, the question of territorial jurisdiction is to be decided first. Admittedly complainant’s Saving Bank account is in the Delhi University Branch of State Bank of India. Fraudulent transactions happened in Mumbai. Communication regarding the withdrawal was made by the Complainant with the DU Branch. The FIR against the fraudulent was filed by the complainant in the Police Station, of Ranjeet Nagar.
- Therefore, it is observed that no cause of action wholly or in a part has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
- The law on the point of jurisdiction has been settled by the Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of its judgment has held as under:-
“In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17 (2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17 (2) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.”
- On perusal, it is noticed that no document has been adduced by the complainant which would reflect that cause of action in whole or in part has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, the complaint is returned for want of territorial jurisdiction.
- 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.
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 29.04.2021.
