IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 42/S/2016.                              DATED : 16.10.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI RAJEEV KUMAR JHA,

  S/O. Sri Mahesh Nandan Jha,

  C/O. Sri Amit Kumar Singh,

  Sainik Puri, P.O. – New Chamta, P.S.- Matigara,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin : 734 009.     

O.Ps.              1.                      : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

  Bajaj Finance Ltd., 

  Loan Agency, Siliguri Branch,

                                                              C/o. M/s  Siliguri Auto Works Pvt. Ltd.,

  1^st Floor, 2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road,

  P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Siliguri – 734 001. 

                                    2.                     : THE ZONAL MANAGER,

  Bajaj Finance Ltd., 

  1201, 12^th Floor, Infinity Bench Mark,

  Plot No.: G1, Ep & Gp, Sector 5, Salt Lake,

  Kolkata – 700 091.

                                    3.                     : THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

  Bajaj Finserv, Corporate Office,

  4^th Floor, Voman Nagar, Pune – 411 014.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Nihar Ranjan Chaki, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

Consumer Case No.42/S/2016

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant approached for a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP Bajaj Finance Ltd. on 14^th January, 2016 for purchasing a flat.  On 18^th January, 2016 at about 7.35 p.m. the complainant received a system generated alert/e-mail from the OP that the loan has been sanctioned in principal.  Thereafter, the complainant received an e-mail on 21.01.2016 at about 11.46 under client reference no.17385300 and bank reference no.601219598631 whereby the OPs informed “we have credited the Account No.01861140036279 with us the amount of Rs.1,85,428/- for the services rendered/to be rendered against the below mentioned payment details.  Relying on the communications/confirmation of the sanctioned of the loan the complainant visited the relevant bank two times till 23^rd January, 2016 to withdraw the loan amount but he found that sanctioned amount had not been credited to his bank account.

Being frustrated and agonized the complainant e-mailed different relevant departments of the OP on 24^th January, 2016 informing them that the sanctioned amount had not been credited to the complainant’s bank account being no.01861140036729 and in the same email the complainant requested the OPs to take action and credit the loan amount within that day or cancel loan-request.  On 27^th January, 2016 at 4.22 p.m. the OPs had emailed the complainant stating inter-alia that due to inadvertent/technical error the account no. was wrongly updated in the system and for reissuing the disbursement amount OPs requested the complainant to provide them a scan copy of cancelled cheque for his loan account P210PL18949279 for validating the details.  The complainant as per request of the OPs in the said email sent the scan cancelled cheque being No.000019 of A/C No.01861140036729 on the same date at about 6.50 p.m.  On 29^th January at about 6.38 p.m. OP emailed to the complainant stating that his loan amount 5210PL18949279 the payment has been reissued and he shall receive the amount within next 24 hours.  On 30^th January, 2016 at about 5.54 p.m. complainant emailed to the OPs stating that almost over 24 hours the loan amount was not credited in his account and accordingly he requested to cancel his loan application.

The complainant approached several occasions to the OP to credit the loan amount in his loan account or cancel the policy but it is surprising that OP charged EMI of Rs.8,721/- from the complainant in respect of the loan amount.  Being harassed by the OPs the complainant has initiated this case before this Forum. 

The OP entered appearance and contested the case by filing written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint are denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

stated by the OPs that the complainant had availed a loan from the OP vide LAN No.5210PL18949279 for an amount of Rs.1,85,428.00 and the monthly EMI to be paid was Rs.2,989.00 and the contract period was for 36 months.  The complainant has issued ECS mandate for repayment of the instalments but said loan amount was mistakenly transferred into a wrong account of one Mr. Abhishek Anand instead of the actual account of the complainant Rajib Kumar Jha.  The complainant’s correct HDFC bank account No. is 01861140036729 and the amount is credited to the bank account No.01861140036279 which belongs to Mr. Abhishek Anand and the said mistake was a purely a human/technical error and it was devoid of any motive or mal practice.  It has been further stated by the OPs that the OPs bank accepted their fault and had done all required efforts to replenish the damage if any and as such cannot be accused of deficiency in service.  It has been further contended by the OPs that the present case is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It has been further contended by the OPs that by virtue of clause 22 (b) of the terms and conditions-personal loan in case of any dispute between the parties all claims will be referred to the sole Arbitrator appointed by the complainant and accordingly the Consumer Forum are debarred from entertaining such complaints and the instant case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  

To prove the case the complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Citation on Jurisdiction Point: Printed copy of order of the Hon’ble NCDRC Decided on 13.01.14, Ref: (2014) 1 CPJ 302.

Melanie Das Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another.

2.       Citation on Jurisdiction Point : Printed copy of Order of the Hon’ble WBSCDRC Deciced on 10.11.2010, Ref: (2011) 1 CPJ 304.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another Vs Biswajit Paul.                

Points for determination

1.       Whether the case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

2.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

3.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

Point No.1

This issue is taken up individually for discussion for the sake of convenience.

The Ld. Advocate of the OP during his course of argument has submitted that

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

this case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The Ld. Advocate of the OPs have further submitted that the office of the OP No.1 is situated at 2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, within P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.- Jalpaiguri and not within the jurisdiction of Siliguri and the Office of OP No.2 is situated at Kolkata and office of the OP No.3 is situated at Voman Nagar, Pune.  As all the offices of the OPs are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, so, this case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that the Office of the OP No.1 Bajaj Finance Ltd., 1^st Floor, 2^nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri is situated under Bhaktinagar P.S., Dist.- Jalpaiguri.  The office of the OP No.2 is situated at Kolkata and the office of the OP No.3 is situated at Pune in the State of Maharashtra and none of the OPs have their place of business within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the cause of action as claimed by the complainant never arose against the OPs at any point of time within the jurisdiction of this Forum. 

As per the Notification No.2906-CA/ESTT/O/5C-17/13 dated 07.10.2015 of the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal, which runs as follows :-

“In exercise of the power conferred by section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Governor is hereby pleased to prescribe for the purposes of the said Act that the local limits u/s 11 of the Act ibid of District Forum, as specified in column 2 of the table below, shall include the areas as mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 3 of the table below”.

SCHEDULE

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-

(a)      the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carried on business or] has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)      any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office,] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office,] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.  

Contd......P/4

-:4:-

In view of the above Government Notification and Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this case as the present case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, we find that the above case is totally barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and accordingly liable to be dismissed.

As the case is failed on jurisdiction point, so we are of the view that issue Nos.2 & 3 are not required to be discussed. 

In the result, the case fails.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.42/S/2016 is dismissed being barred by the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 -Member-                                                          -President-