Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he used to work at Delhi but subsequently is residing at Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064 in his present address as given in the complaint. 

          Complainant’s main allegation is that he deposited the cheque of Rs. 4,76,000/- vide cheque No. 652897 at State Bank of India, Green Park Extension Branch, Delhi on 14.02.2008 and the said amount was supposed to be credited to his SBI A/C at Salt Lake Branch and said cheque was issued by G.E. Capitals being Provident Fund Settlement Account and the said cheque was drawn on Bank of Maharashtra.

          Subsequently on 21.10.2008 complainant deposited two cheqes at the said State Bank of India, Green Park Extension Branch, Delhi for Rs. 2,39,500/- being the cheque No. 113278 and another cheque of Rs. 3,85,000/- being the cheque No. 113270 and both of HSBC Bank and the said two cheques were supposed to be credited to his father’s account being Savings A/C No. 10021611820 with SBI, Salt Lake Branch, Kolkata-64.  But surprisingly the said cheques which were deposited by the complainant have not been credited in the Savings Account of the complainant and his father’s for which complainant again and again made enquiry with the bank of Delhi to that effect.  But on regular pursuation finally bank informed on 03.10.2008 through E-mail that the said cheques were lost in transit while in national clearing.So, op Bank provided indemnity and also requested the complainant to handover the fresh cheques so that bank can give credit of the said amount.

          On 15.12.2008 op informed the complainant that they have received a fresh cheque of Rs. 4,14,781.19 paisa on Bank of Maharashtra vide cheque No. 367189 and deposited the same for credit into National Clearings.  But on 05.01.2009 op informed that the cheque drawn on Bank of Maharashtra would be credited within a week.  Thereafter complainant even after getting such commitment and assurances of the Bank ultimately found that the said amount has not been credited in the savings bank account of the complainant.

          So, for negligent and deficient manner of service of the ops, complainant suffered much and at the same time lost huge money without enjoying interest and in the circumstances, complainant has prayed for directing the op to pay Rs. 4,76,000/- with 12 percent interest per annum and further compensation etc. and to credit the said amount in the Salt Lake Branch at Kolkata – 700064 of the complainant.

          On the other hand op State Bank of India by filing written statement submitted that only after receipt of the Lawyer’s notice dated 31.08.2009 sent by Prasanta Banerjee Advocate on behalf of the complainant, through his lawyergave reply in respect of the said letter dated 31.08.2009 and requested the complainant through his lawyer Prasanta Banerjee to supply the details and relevant copies of the document as stated in the said letterbut complainant neglected to reply the same.

          In respect of the allegation as made in para-12 to 15, complainant denied and disputed the same and also stated that entire allegations are false, baseless, concocted and afterthought and complainant has tried to make illegal gains by filing this false case before this Forum.

          It is further submitted that the alleged cheques were issued within the Delhi jurisdiction and same were deposited within Delhi jurisdiction and as per complaint, the alleged cheques were deposited in the Bank of SBI at Delhi, SBI, Green Park Extension Branch.  So, as per provision of law, cause of action arose within Delhi jurisdiction and no part of the cause of action arose within the West Bengal or any Branch Office of SBI at West Bengal.  So, the entire complaint is not maintainable and the case ought to have been filed within the Delhi jurisdiction.

          It is further submitted that the complainant submitted two cases being Nos. 1323 of 2009 and the present case in respect of the same matter.  So, the present complaint is not maintainable.  Further op has submitted that the entire complaint is vexatious, uncalled for, and illegal and in fact no such cheque was at all deposited by any point of time at the Delhi Branch.  So, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          After proper hearing of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the entire materials on record, we have gathered that complainant in the prayer portion has prayed for giving such relief in respect of Rs. 4,76,000/- in respect of cheque No, 652987 which was in the name of the complainant SubrojeetSyam as alleged.  So, only in respect of alleged cheque, this Forum can decide the dispute. 

          But in the present complaint in para- 5, complainant has submitted that he also submitted two other cheques bearing No. 113278 for a sum of Rs. 2,39,500/- and another cheque bearing No.113270 for a sum of Rs. 3,85,500/- of HSBC Bank were also deposited to the same Bank for crediting the same in the account of his father being A/C No. 1002164820.

          But truth is that in respect of the said two cheques, a separate case being No. 1323 of 2009 was filed and that was already disposed of and dismissed on contest on 06.01.2009 on merit.  So, this chapter as mentioned in the Para-5 of the complaint is treated as finally disposed in another Case No. 1323 of 2009.  So that matter is overlooked in the present complaint.  But we are very much empowered to consider the allegation in respect of non-encashment of the cheque bearing No. 652987 for a sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- of Maharashtra Bank.

          Practically in this case ops submitted that no cause of action arose within West Bengal or any branch of the SBI at West Bengal because from the complaint, it is found that the cheque of Maharashtra Bank of Delhi was alleged to have been issued by G.E. Capital Provident Fund Trustees of Gurgaon, Haryana and then the cheque was no doubt may be op no.5 and complainant deposited the same to SBI, S-8 Green Park Extension Branch, Near Upahar Cinema, Delhi – 110016.

          For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that for the laches of the op no.1 the cheque was lost in that case, it is proved that cause of action arose at Delhi.  At the same time it is peculiar that in the complaint, complainant has not stated why he has filed this complaint within the West Bengal jurisdiction when negligence and deficiency if any is on the part of the op no.1 State Bank of India, Green Park Extension Branch, Delhi.  But it is not the laches on the part of op no.2 SBI, Salt Lake Branch or SBI Head Office Branch of West Bengal.

          So, considering all the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that complainant has failed to prove any sort of negligence and deficiency on the part of the op nos. 2 & 3 and in fact they are added as parties without any sufficient cause or reason and no cause of action arose against op nos. 2 & 3 for which this complaint fails against op nos. 2 & 3.

          Against op no.1 if complaint maintains in that case invariably complaint ought to have filed the complaint within the jurisdiction of Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum within whose jurisdiction of State Bank of India, Green Park Extension Branch, Delhiis situated.  Truth is that as per provision of law, the cause of action is nothing but the bundle of fact and considering the bundle of fact, it is clear that the present Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this dispute in view of the fact amended Section 17 (2) of C.P. Act 1986 which has already cleared that the complaint may be filed against the Branch Office where cause of action has arisen.  In this case, it is found that cause of action arose in the State Bank of India, Green Park Extension Branch, Delhi which is not within the jurisdiction of this Forum and at the same time Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the cause of action is the bundle of facts which gives the right for liability.

          So, in the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that no part of cause of action arose within West Bengal or within the jurisdiction of this Forum and for which we are convinced to hold that the present Forum has no legal jurisdiction to decide such dispute and fact remains that the complainant has intentionally filed this complaint for some other reason and for which the present complaint fails for want of jurisdiction of this Forum to decide.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed as the present Forum has not legal jurisdiction to decide the present complaint because any part cause of action never arose within the jurisdiction of West Bengal but cause of action arose at Delhi jurisdiction for which the present complaint is returned to the complainant for filing the same before the proper jurisdiction for relief and to that effect the complainant is given a time one month to refile the present complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Delhi and if it is not, otherwise barred.

          Thus this present complaint is barred under Section 11 of C.P. Act.