04-12-14 – Heard the parties on the prayer for condoning the delay of about three months in filing this appeal.  The appellant has annexed medical papers in support of the prayer to condone the delay.

          On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

2.       Heard the parties on merit.

This appeal has been filing against the order dated 24.12.2013/26.12.2013 dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad.

3.       Mr. R. R. Sinha learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant had made investment in the UTI scheme from Dhanbad and he was receiving term wise interest on the bonds, from time to time, at Dhanbad.  The payment in question was also to be made in Dhanbad, which will appear from the cheque sent by the Respondent UTI itself and therefore the complaint could not be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.  He further submitted that the UTI has an agent/branch office at Dhanbad.

4.       Mr. Bibhash Sinha learned counsel appearing for the respondents - UTI submitted that when the respondents received the complaint from the appellant about non receipt of the amount in question, it inquired into the matter and found that the amount in question was fraudulently tried to be credited by some other person in his account at Giridih Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Giridih. Then, the respondents got the payment stopped. Thereafter, the said bank called the appellant and the said person, and on being satisfied with the identity, issued the cheque in favour of the appellant for the said amount.  He submitted that in this situation, if the appellant had any further grievance, it could pursue the case against the said person and/or against the said bank with whom the money was laying for about 2 years, as inspite of the stopping the payment by the respondents, the said Bank delayed the matter.  He therefore submitted that the Respondents are not at fault at all.

5.       By the impugned order, the complaint has been dismissed only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, and therefore we are not going into the merits of the respective cases of the parties. 

6.       We are of the view that as the investment was made by the appellant from Dhanbad and he was receiving certain payments therefrom at Dhanbad, the Dhanbad District Consumer Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7.       In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned District Consumer Forum Dhanbad to decide the case on merits.

          With these observations and directions this appeal stands disposed off.

          Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

            Ranchi,    

Dated: 04.12.2014