DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 884 of 2009 Date of Inst:25.08.2009 Date of Decision:21.05.2010 Satish Kapoor s/o Sh.Rattan Lal r/o Village Anu Kalan, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. The Manager, HDFC Bank, SCO No.76-77, Sector-8C, Chandigarh. 2 The Manager, HDFC Bank, Jalandhar Branch, GT Road, Near Shingar Cinema, Jalandhar. 3 Mr.Sanjay Rattan, Represenative of M/s Syal Auto Leasing Company, C/o Vinayak Auto Power House, Ghurkari, District Kangra, H.P. (OP No.3 deleted vide order dated 09.03.2010). ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Krishan Singla, Adv. for complainant Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Satish Kapoor has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to:- i) Issue no due certificate ii) Return all original cheques. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment iv) Pay a sum of Rs.11000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Car (Alto). The said car was financed by OP-2. OP-2 financed a sum of Rs.1,81,000/. The above said loan was to be repaid in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.4650/-. The first installment was deducted at the time of release of the loan. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that OP-3 is the franchisee of OP-2. So on the instructions of OP-2, he gave 46 postdated cheques to OP-3 for payment of installments. It has further been pleaded that later on, it appears that OP-2 cancelled the franchisee of OP-3. So OP-3 did not credit the amount in the account of HDFC after August, 2007. So in the month of November, 2007, OP-2 contacted the complainant and asked him to pay 5 EMIs through demand drafts in favour of HDFC Bank. The complainant paid 5 installments through demand draft. Thereafter, the complainant had been paying the EMIs to the HDFC Bank either through demand draft or cheques. The case of the complainant is that he wanted to close the account so he paid all the remaining EMIs in advance towards the loan account. No amount was outstanding against the said loan account. Thereafter, the complainant requested OPs to issue No Due Certificate of the loan account and also to return the unused cheques. Despite his requests and even the complaint made to the higher authorities, OPs failed to issue No Due Certificate and to return the unused cheques. The complainant served notice upon the OPs but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs No.1 and 2, the advancement of the loan and repayment of the EMIs as per the schedule has been admitted. According to OPs, the complainant has not paid the entire outstanding amount and a sum of Rs.46,593/- was outstanding against him on 17.11.2009. As the complainant has not repaid the entire amount, he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint. It has further been pleaded that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. The loan was taken by the complainant at Jalandhar. The payments were made at Branch Office of HDFC at Hamirpur and other Branches in Himachal Pradesh. No transaction was made at Chandigarh. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint deserves dismissal. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. From the complaint and documents (Annexure C-1 and C-2), it is apparent that the loan was advanced by the Branch Office of HDFC at Jalandhar. From the receipts and the statements placed on record by the complainant, it is apparent that the loan was repaid at various branches of HDFC in H.P. Thus, neither the loan was taken nor any installment was paid at Chandigarh. Therefore, the District Forum at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because no cause of action has arisen at Chandigarh. Mere fact that application for No Due Certificate was forwarded to Chandigarh Branch does not give any cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint at Chandigarh as ultimately the No Due Certificate has to be issued by HDFC Branch at Hamirpur or Jalandhar. Our view is fortified by the ratio of the case titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity [vide G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].” 7. In view of the above findings, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Therefore, the same is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 21.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.884 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 20.05.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 21.05.2010 Member President
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
