MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 29.07.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1610 of 2009 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant opened a “Priority Banking” joint account alongwith his wife in the concerned branch of OP-1 at Gurgaon, (Haryana).  The facilities of the said account, were roaming, in nature in overall branches of OP-1. Thereafter the complainant shifted to Panchkula, (Haryana), and started availing of  facilities of his account, from the other concerned Branch of OP-1, situated at Panchkula, (Haryana).  It was stated that for a short period of time, he sought conversion of his account as “non-priority account”. However, the bank was again requested to convert the account as “priority banking account”. It was further stated that on 25.09.2009, the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.45,00,000/-, in his own name, on the “priority banking” account, with OP-2, to cause a transfer from his said account, to his ICICI Bank account at Chandigarh.  The complainant, in anticipation of the transfer of the said amount, to his account, issued another cheque drawn on ICICI Bank in the name of Net Soft Informatics Private Limited on 28.09.2009, but the said cheque was duly returned for the reasons “Funds Insufficient” by the said bank.  The complainant, immediately sought explanation from OP-2, regarding the same, and was informed by OP-2 that the cheque dated 25.09.2009 had been dishonoured by OP-3, at Chandigarh, being the Service Branch of OPs No. 1  & 2.  Thereafter, the complainant received a cheque returning memorandum dated 29.09.2009. The reason for the dishonour was “Exceeds the Limit of Outstation At-Par Payment”. On inquiry from OP-2, the complainant was informed that there was an implicit limit of Rs.50,000/- only on such instrument, and the instrument issued by him, had far exceeded the said limit. It was further stated by the complainant that the cheque which was issued by him on 28.09.2009, did not have any such limitation of usage embossed on it, by the OPs, and rather all the cheque leafs issued by OP-2, only stated “Payable at Par at all Branches of Axis Bank in India”. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, it was stated that the complaint was not maintainable, as no cause of action, arose at Chandigarh. It was admitted that the OPs have banking Branches across India, but that does not mean that anybody can go anywhere, in India, and file a case.  It was further stated that the complainant was maintaining account with the OPs at Gurgaon, and the cheque, which he was referring to, was dishonoured at Panchkula and hence, only the Consumer Forum at Gurgaon or Panchkula was having jurisdiction to try this case. It was further stated that the complainant himself had admitted that he sought conversion of account as “non-priority” account. As per his instructions his account remained as “non priority account” in which the maximum limit, as per the instrument, for clearing cheque payment, at a Branch other than the base Branch was Rs.50,000/-, whereas the cheque, in question, was for a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- and hence the OPs rightly dishonoured the cheque. It was further stated that the complainant was enjoying priority banking till 11.06.2008, and, thereafter, from 12.06.2008, his account was converted into normal “saving bank easy account” on his own request. It was further stated that no request with regard to upgradation of the account again to “priority banking” was made to the OPs by the complainant. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.       The learned District Forum, dismissed  the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

6.         Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard Sh. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the appellant/complainant Sh.Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate, for the respondents, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.                The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, contended that the respondents/OPs, were deficient in rendering service qua the complainant because he opened a ‘priority banking’ joint account alongwith his wife, in the concerned branch of OP No.1, at Gurgaon, Haryana. The facility of the said account was roaming, in nature, in all the Branches of OP No.1, in India. In the meantime, the complainant shifted to Panchkula, Haryana. Since the facilities of the said account were roaming, in nature, hence the appellant/complainant started availing of the services, from the concerned Branch at Panchkula of OP No.1. It was further contended that on 25.9.2009 he issued a cheque of Rs.45,00,000/-  in his own name,  on the “Priority Banking Account” with OP No.2  (i.e. Axis Bank, DLF Gurgaon) to cause a transfer, from his said account to his ICICI Bank account, at Chandigarh. In anticipation of the transfer of the said amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to his account, he issued another cheque drawn, on the said ICICI Bank in the name of Net Soft Informatics Pvt. Ltd., being the Company of his son-in-law on 28.9.2009, but the said cheque was returned, for the reasons “funds insufficient” by the ICICI bank. He immediately sought explanation from his banker i.e. OP No.2, regarding the same. It was further contended that the bank, vide telephone, informed him that his cheque dated 25.9.2009 had been dishonoured by OP No.3, i.e. Axis Bank, Chandigarh,  being the service Branch of OPs No.1 & 2. Thereafter, he received a cheque returning memorandum dated 29.9.2009. The reason for dishonour was “Exceeds the Limit of Outstation At-Par Payment”. On enquiry from OP No.2, the complainant was informed that there was an implicit limit of Rs.50,000/- only, on such instrument, and the instrument issued by him, far exceeded the said limit. It was further contended that the cheque issued by him on 28.9.2009 did not have any such limitation of usage embossed on it by the OPs. Rather all the cheque leafs issued by OP No.2 did state “payable at par at all Branches of Axis Bank in India” and, as such, the aforesaid acts of the OPs tantamounted to deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice.  The learned Counsel further argued that once the learned District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the complaint deserved to be dismissed, on the ground, that it had no territorial jurisdiction, then it could not decide the same on merits.

9.                     The learned Counsel for the respondents/OPs contended that no cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. He further contended that the complainant was maintaining an account with the OPs, at Gurgaon and the abovesaid cheque was dishonoured at Panchkula.  He further contended that, in this situation, the complainant should have filed the complaint either before the Consumer Forum at Gurgaon or Panchkula.

10.       There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant was having a “priority banking account” at Gurgaon Branch of Axis Bank (OP No.2). On his request, the account of the complainant was downgraded as  “non priority account”. The complainant shifted to Panchkula (Haryana), and started availing of facilities of his account, from Panchkula Branch of Axis Bank. Admittedly, the cheque, in question, was issued from the Axis Bank Gurgaon (OP No.2)  and the same was dishonoured at Panchkula Branch. Reply was sent by OP No.2 (Gurgaon Branch), through its Chandigarh Branch Office (OP No.3).  In these circumstances, either the District Forum, Gurgaon, or Panchkula had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mere sending of reply by OP No.2, through OP No.3, did not confer any territorial jurisdiction, on District Forum, Chandigarh. When the District Forum, Chandigarh, came to the conclusion, that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, it could not decide the same on merits.  The District Forum committed an illegality in deciding the complaint, on merits.  

11.                   For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint, before the appropriate District Forum, having the territorial jurisdiction. In the event of filing a fresh complaint, before the appropriate Forum, the complainant shall be at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay, on the ground, that he was pursuing his remedy bonafide, before the wrong Forum. 

                        Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.