Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/247/2015

Tarsem Kumar Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Surjit Singh Chauhan, Adv.

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

              UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	247 of 2015
Date of Institution	29.09.2015
Date of Decision	01.10.2015

 

 

Tarsem Kumar Kansal S/o Phaggu Ram r/o H.No.1410, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

 

                                          ….Appellant/Complainant.                  

                     Versus

The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP).

                                    ….Respondent/Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh.Surjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER         

                        This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.460 of 2015, filed by the complainant, for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked a residential plot with Ghaziabad Development Authority, Vikas Nagar, Ghaziabad in Plan No.596/740 and paid an earnest money of Rs.12,340/- through demand draft No.786908 dated 13.08.1990 (Annexure C-1).  The complainant never received any intimation from the Ghaziabad Development Authority whether he had been allotted a plot or not, forcing him to seek information under the RTI Act from it.  The Ghaziabad Development Authority vide letter dated 09.12.2010 informed that the complainant was not successful in the allotment of plots and that the earnest amount of Rs.12,340/- deposited by him, was lying with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad (Opposite Party).  It was stated that the said refund voucher was never sent by the Opposite Party to the complainant by post nor credited to his account and the said amount remained with it.  Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure C-3) to the Opposite Party, which was duly replied by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 02.06.2015 (Annexure C-4) and advised him to visit its office with proper documents and receive the claim.  As per the complainant, instead of calling him to Ghaziabad, the Opposite Party could have easily sent the amount called for in the legal notice through an account payee cheque at his address. Therefore, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act" only), was filed.

3.             The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

4.             After   hearing   the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

5.             Feeling aggrieved, the     instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

6.             We have heard the   Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

7.             The Counsel for the appellant/ complainant, submitted that the facts of the complaint are distinguishable from the facts of the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company IV (2004) CPJ 40 (SC). He further submitted that all the branches of banks in India are connected to one another through net banking and branch of bank at Chandigarh is as good as a branch of Ghaziabad and a person having bank account at Ghaziabad Bank branch can operate his account at Chandigarh branch of the bank also. He contended that the Opposite Party in reply to the legal notice (Annexure C-4) had not raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the Forum to adjudicate upon the complaint. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

8.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter.

9.             The principal question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, the Forum rightly dismissed the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The answer, to this question, is in the affirmative. Annexure C-1 is a copy of the receipt of the application issued by Ghaziabad Development Authority. From this document, it is proved that the complainant booked a residential plot with Ghaziabad Development Authority and paid an earnest money of Rs.12,340/- on 13.08.1990. Annexure C-2 is a copy of the letter dated 09.12.2010. From this document, it is proved that  Ghaziabad Development Authority informed the complainant that he was not successful in allotment of plots, for which, he had applied and the earnest money deposited by him, lying deposited with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad. The allegation of the complainant that the respondent/Opposite Party bank never sent the refund voucher to him nor credited to his account and to prove this, he also placed on record copy of legal notice dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure C-3), which was sent to the Opposite Party bank and after receipt of the said notice, it (Opposite Party) duly replied dated 02.06.2015 (Annexure C-4) to the said notice, whereby, he was asked to visit the branch (Ghaziabad branch) to receive his claim with proper documents. It is, no doubt, true that the Opposite Party bank is situated at Ghaziabad. Even a bare perusal of reply to the legal notice (Annexure C-4), which was sent by the Opposite Party to the complainant shows that the bank clearly asked him that as per application, the unsuccessful candidate is required to visit the branch and surrender the original copy of challan (applicant copy) after signature at the back of said challan copy but unsuccessful applicant never visited the branch in this regard. The bank also advised the complainant to follow the rules of Bank and Development Authority and visit the branch to receive the claim with proper documents. However, the complainant did not follow the rules, as advised by the bank, and he instead visited the said branch, filed the complaint before the Forum. Even the legal notice (Annexure C-3) sent by the Counsel for the complainant to the Opposite Party from Chandigarh and reply (Annexure C-4) was sent to the Counsel for the complainant at Chandigarh address, did not give rise to any cause of action at Chandigarh.  There is not even a single document, on record, from which, it could be established, that any cause of action, or part of cause of action, accrued to the complainant, at Chandigarh.  Thus, it is clearly proved that no cause of action, whatsoever, arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of the Forum, at Chandigarh. The judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant in Surya Sharma Vs. M/s Shopclues, Consumer Complaint No.151 of 2015, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I on 04.08.2015, is of no help to him, the same being distinguishable on facts.

10.            In view of the above, the Forum while relying upon Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV(2009) CPJ 40(SC), was right in holding that it did not vest with the territorial jurisdiction. So, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Forum is liable to be upheld.   

11.            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Forum was right, in dismissing the complaint, as stated above.   Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

13.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                  

October 01, 2015.                                      Sd/-       

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

Sd/-

                                           (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER