M.L.Srimannarayana S/o. M.V.L.N.Charyulu filed a consumer case on 30 Mar 2015 against The Branch Manager,HDFC Bank in the Chittoor-II at triputi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/9/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Apr 2015.
Filing Date:04.02.2014
Order Date: 30.03.2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
MONDAY THE THIRTIETH OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
C.C.No.09/2014
Between
M.L.Srimannarayana,
S/o. M.L.V.N.Charyulu,
DGM (Finance),
Seven Hills Enterprises,
D.No.305A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad.
And also office at:
D.No.3-96, Ram Nagar,
Sathyavedu,
Chittoor District. … Complainant
And
1. The Branch Manager,
HDFC Bank,
MLA Colony,
Road No.12,
Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad.
2. The Branch Manager,
HDFC Bank,
AIR Byepass Road,
Tirupati. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.03.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.Naidu Prakash Reddy, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 praying the Forum 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.65,534/- towards balance of interest, b) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and c) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay costs of the complaint.
2. The brief averments in the complaint are:- That the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2.08 crores in the 1st opposite party after ascertaining from the opposite parties that the interest will be given at 9% p.a. The deposit was made for a period of one month. The complainant has withdrawn the amount so deposited, at that time the opposite parties have given interest at 4% p.a. only as against 9% p.a., calculating the interest at 4% p.a. the opposite parties has given only Rs.52,427/- instead of total interest amount of Rs.1,17,961/-. That the opposite parties misrepresented the facts and given lesser interest, as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed its written version and the same is adopted by the 2nd opposite party, denying the complaint averments and further contended that the complainant Seven Hills Enterprises is doing business in mining at Hyderabad. He sent a mail on 16.08.2013 to the 1st opposite party seeking competitive rate of interest of rates offering by the 1st opposite party on the fixed deposits for one month or more. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party has furnished the rate of interest on values deposits, such as short term and long term deposits etc. The complainant has deposited Rs.2.08 crores for 30 days, but he has withdrawn the amount even before the date of maturity, that is why as per the terms and conditions agreed upon, the interest was calculated for 28 days and given the amount along with interest and the same was accepted by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant made the deposit for commercial purpose, and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. Complainant and opposite parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B6 for the opposite parties. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.
5. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i). Whether the complainant comes under the purview of consumer?
(ii). Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint?
(iii). To what reliefs?
6. Point No.(i):- to answer this point, it is pertinent to re-produce the definition of ‘consumer’ as contemplated under Section-2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986. Section-2(1)(d) defines the word ‘consumer’ as follows:-
“consumer” means any person who – (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose
(ii) [hires or avails of] an services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose] |
Here in this case, admittedly the complainant is doing business under the name and style of ‘Seven Hills Enterprises’ holding head office at 305A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The complainant further stated that he is also having office at D.No.3-96, Ram Nagar, Satyavedu, Chittoor District.
For the reasons best known, the complainant did not mention anywhere in his complaint or in chief affidavit or in the written arguments that he has made any transaction or part thereof with the opposite parties 1 or 2 from his office at Satyavedu. Except giving some notices through his counsel. It is settled proposition of law that the notices will not create jurisdiction. The entire transaction took place at Hyderabad according to the opposite parties, that apart it is entirely a commercial transaction. The complainant is doing business. The complainant has deposited Rs.2.08 cores with the opposite party at HDFC Bank, Hyderabad, for interest purpose and not for eking his livelihood. Therefore, Section-2(1)(d) specifically envisages that... “but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”. Under Section-2(1)(d) Clause(ii) also it was reiterated that “but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”. Here in this case, the complainant has availed services of the opposite party only for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant shall not come within the purview of “consumer”. Accordingly, this point is answered.
7. Point No.(ii):- So far as the jurisdiction is concern, the complainant staying at Hyderabad. The address of the complainant in his complaint reveals that he is the DGM (Finance), Seven Hills Enterprises, holding head office at 305A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. He is also having his office at D.No.3-96, Ram Nagar, Satyavedu, Chittoor District. Unless any cause of action or part of cause of action was taken place from or to his office at Satyavedu to either of opposite parties 1 or 2 or both or vice versa, this Forum will not have jurisdiction. Ex.A1 is the mail. Ex.A2 is the letter addressed by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dt:26.10.2013, which did not disclose its date or the office from where it was sent. Ex.A3 is the notice given by his advocate on 03.12.2013 from Tirupati. Ex.A4 are the two postal acknowledgements served on opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex.A5 is the reply notice given by the counsel for opposite party from Hyderabad and Ex.A6 is the letter appointing the complainant as DGM. Exs.A1 and A2 did not disclose that the correspondence was made from Satyavedu or Ex.A6 was issued at Satyavedu. Exs.A3, A4 and A5 are the notices and reply notices etc., which cannot create jurisdiction. Exs.B1 to B6 also not helpful to the complainant. Since the entire transactions took place at Hyderabad between the complainant and 1st opposite party and no transactions were taken place directly between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 from Satyavedu or Tirupati, either in full cause of action or part in part thereof. Therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the complainant relied on Supreme Court Ruling in Karnataka Power Transmission Case, which relates to electricity consumption, wherein their Lordships held that an electricity consumer falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’ – In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd . In the same decision, their Lordships further held that “Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in commercial activity and electricity constituted goods under the act, the claim was invalid as the sale of goods to a commercial consumer for a commercial purpose falls outside the scope of the act”. Therefore, the facts of the above decision are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly this point is answered.
8. Point No.(iii):- In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section-2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986 and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as contemplated under Section-11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to entertain the complaint. The complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
The complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal.
Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 30th day of March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES
PW-1: Marimganti Lakshmana Srimannarayana (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-1: Nalla Hanumantha Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Exhibits | Description of Documents |
Ex.A1. | Mail copy issued by the respondent No.1. Dt: 01.12.2013. |
2. | Mail copy issued by the complainant to the respondent. Dt: 26.10.2013. |
3. | Office copy of the Legal notice issued by the complainant to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with postal receipts. Dt: 03.12.2013. |
4. | Acknowledgement Card (Nos.2) Dt: 04.12.2013. |
5. | A True copy of reply notice given by the respondent No.1 through his counsel. Dt: 15.01.2014. |
6. | Authorization letter Dt: 20.03.2014 issued by Managing Partner Seven Hills Enterprises to appoint the Complainant to handle Financial Legal Matters, filed on behalf of the Complainant. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S
Exhibits | Description of Documents |
Ex.B1. | A photo copy of the Mail sent to the first opposite party by M/s SEVEN HILLS Enterprises on behalf of the first Opposite Party. Dt: 16.08.2013. |
2. | A photo copy of the Mail sent to the first opposite party to M/s SEVEN HILLS Enterprises on behalf of the first Opposite Party. Dt: 16.08.2013. |
3. | A photo copy of the Letter of Request for premature closure of FD’s submitted by the M/s SEVEN HILLS Enterprises filed on behalf of the First Opposite Party. Dt: 10.09.2013. |
4. | A photo copy of the Current Account Statement of M/s SEVEN HILLS Enterprises maintained in the first Opposite Party bank filed on behalf of the first Opposite Party. |
5. | A photo copy of the mail sent to the first Opposite Party by M/s SEVEN HILLS Enterprises with regard to Variance in interest payments filed on behalf of the first Opposite Party. Dt: 11.09.2013. |
6. | A photo copy of the mail sent by the first Opposite Party to M/s SEVEN HILLS Enterprises with regard to rate of interest applicable for various deposits filed on behalf of the first Opposite Party. Dt: 10.10.2013. |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The Complainant.
2. The opposite parties.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.