This day is fixed for admission hearing.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira.
Heard the ld. Advocate. Perused the complainant and the documents thereto.
The perusal of the complainant’s case reveals the following:-
- From the Xerox of the of the cheque No. 765822 of the Syndicate Bank, Siliguri, Sevoke Road Branch issued on the A/C No. 97901400000100 (Annex-1), it is seen that the loan was sanctioned in favour of Saddab Hossain Shoe House, which is a business organization/shop. So the loan is commercial one. The complainant also admits in Para 4 of the plaint that the loan was meant for extension and development of his business.
- While the loan was sanctioned in favour of business organization named & styled “Saddab Hossain Shoe House”, the complainant is one Sabir Ali. Therefore, while the loanee – shoe House is not the complainant, the complaint is, conversely, not the loanee.
Thus the complainant, Sabir Ali, does not fall within the definition of “consumer” as per Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
- The OP No. 3 is the Regional office which do not sanction loan. It is the OP No. 1 & 2 who sanctioned the loan. It is alleged that the OP No. 2 insisted the complainant on opening a fixed deposit A/C of Rs. 50,000/- out of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and such F.D. A/C bears the No. 95234010000125. Out of this fixed amount of Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 32,000/- was transferred by the OP No.2 to another A/C without the knowledge of the complainant.
The complainant enquired the matter and the OP No.2 told him (complainant) that he (OP No. 2) was instructed from the Regional Office (OP NO.3) to do such Act. That the OP No. 3 instructed the OP No. 2 to do such unauthorized transfer is thus not documentarily established.
However, a document has been created by the complainant by making a letter dtd. 08.05.2019 addressed to the Manager of Regional Office informing the facts and incident under intimation to the OP No.2. But no acknowledgement of the OP No. 3 in receipt that letter is found to be enclosed as documentary support with the complainant.
Thus this Forum is of the considered view that the OP No. 3 has unnecessarily been implicated in the case just to impress the Forum that, at least, part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Other Ops, i.e., OP No. 1, 2 & 4 hail from/reside outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Forum and as such the instant complaint case is hit by Sec. 11(2) of the Act.
The case being thus deficient of requirement of those two sections is not admitted.
