Both parties are present by filing hazira through their Ld. Agents.

            Today is fixed for passing necessary order as to the hearing of petition dated 22.07.2015 filed by the OP No.1 on the point of maintainability of the complaint.

            The Ld. Agent for the Complainant also filed w/o against the said petition.  The petition was heard in full and also perused the w/o filed by the Ld. Agent for the Complainant.

            It is the case of the OP No.1 that the Complainant purchased the Demand Draft from the OP No.1, State Bank of India, Bikash Bhavan Branch, Salt Lake, Kolkata that is not within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Further, no cause of action arose within this jurisdiction.  The alleged Demand Draft was purchased not by the present Complainant but by the son of the Complainant named Vishwas Pareek, a student of IGNOU.  The son of the Complainant purchased the Demand Draft of Rs.6,000/- bearing No.073678 from the said Bank on 09.06.14.

            The Ld. Agent for the Complainant files objection wherein he stated that as per Section 11 (a) (b) this Forum has jurisdiction to try the present case. Moreover, the OP No.1 not only has a branch office at Alipurduar but also is an acquiesce by acknowledging letter dated 02.09.14 written by son of the Complainant under seal and signature and assuring the Complainant that the amount of Rs.6,000/- with commission of Rs.51/- will be credited in the  Account of the Complainant in SBI, Alipurduar Branch i.e. OP No.2.

            On perusal the documents (Annexure ‘5’) no seal and signature of the concerned officials of the Bikash Bhavan Branch appears.

            In the case in hand, the dispute, in question, is related with a Demand Draft purchased by the son of the Complainant from OP No.1 i.e. the State Bank of India, Bikash Bhavan Branch, Kolkata.  The said Branch of the OP Bank is not within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.  But the one Branch of the State Bank of India is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum that have no connection with this dispute.  The Ld. Agent for the OP No.1 vehemently stated that Vishwas Pareek has no Account with the OP No.2 who purchased the alleged Demand Draft.  Cause of action arose in the Kolkata i.e. also out of jurisdiction of this Forum.

            Considering the contention of both parties, this Forum reveals that the Demand Draft, in question, was purchased by Vishwas Pareek S/O the Complainant on 09.06.2014 from the OP No.1 not by the Complainant. The Complainant neither purchased the alleged demand draft nor avails of any services for consideration. Thus, in view of Section 2(1) (d) (I &ii) the Complainant is not a consumer.

            Moreover, son of the Complainant has no Account with the OP No.2.  Thus, in no way the dispute cropped up between the Complainant’s son and the OP No.1 is related with the OP No.2.

            In the light of foregoing discussion, we constrained to hold that as the Complainant is not a consumer for which this case is not maintainable before this Consumer Forum and also this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.

            Hence,

                        It is ordered, that the petition dated 22.07.15 of OP No.1 is considered and allowed. 

            Thus, the CC 17/15 be and the same is dismissed on point of maintainability.

                Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party.

Dictated and corrected by me