BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 88/11.
THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sangappa K. Ganiger, HOD & Assistant Professor
Government Engineering College, Yermarus Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The General Manager, Bank of Baroda (Retail
Banking) Bandra-Kurla Complex, C-26 Bandra East Mumbai-400 051.
2. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Super
Market Branch, Gulbarga.
Date of institution :- 23-11-11.
Date of disposal :- 09-02-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. C.K. Basavaraj Naik, Advocate.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 represented by Sri. K.D. Bhantnuar, Advocate
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is the complaint filed by one Sangappa K. Ganigera against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Bank of Baroda U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- with cost and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he is working as HOD and Assistant Professor in Government Engineering College Yermarus, Raichur. He is the customer of the opposite No-2 Bank, he availed loan and paid EMI as per the fixed rate to opposite No-2 Bank. But opposite No-2 Bank, deducted an amount of Rs. 3,475/- every month without his consent which is excess amount. He wrote letters to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to refund the excess amount deducted, but, opposite not shown good response to his requests by showing their negligence in returning the amount with one or other reasons. Hence this complaint is filed for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Bank, appeared in this case through their Advocate filed written version by denying all the allegations made against them and the amount deducted as stated in the complaint was towards deviation charges, it is not an excess amount deduced against to the terms and conditions of the loan, there is no cause of action to file this complaint as such there is no deficiency in their services and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether this District Consumer Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.?
2. What order.
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum for to entertain the Consumer Complaint. Section 11(2) is a relevant provision for us to consider as to whether this District Consumer Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
7. As per the facts pleaded by the complainant, opposite No-1 is a General Manager of Bank of Baroda situated his office at Bandra East Mumbai. Opposite No-2 is the Branch Manager, working under opposite No-1 and his office is situated in Super Market Gulbarga. In view of the fact, neither opposite No-1 nor opposite No-2 have no offices at Raichur or in Raichur District.
8. As per section 11(2) (a) & (b) the opposites office are not situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, the application of provisions 2 (a) & (b) are out of our consideration. Another provision 11 (2) (C) remains for us to see whether, the cause of action, either wholly or in part arises to this complainant to file this complaint before this Forum. To see this fact we have gone meticulously the entire facts of the complaint affidavit-evidence and we are of the opinion that, the complainant never stated regarding the cause of action arose to him wholly or in part in Raichur District to file this complaint before this Forum.
9. We have raised this point at the time of arguments advanced by the learned advocate for complainant, but he unable to explain before us as to how this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Simply it is stated by him that this Forum has got jurisdiction except this submission no supporting facts brought to our notice or he not produced any authorities in support of that submission.
10. In view of the circumstances stated above, we have gone through the entire facts pleaded in the complaint, as well as, from the evidence of PW-1 and we are of the view that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, this complaint be returned to complainant to file this complaint before proper Forum. Accordingly this point is answered.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint is not maintainable before this forum, as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. Accordingly, complaint shall be returned to complainant to present it before proper Forum.
Intimate the complainant accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-02-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum-Raichur. District Consumer Forum-Raichur.
