Order No. 02   Date- 09.11.2020

            Today is fixed for admission hearing of the instant consumer case. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant who submits that the complainant availed loan of  Rs 11,79,000/-  from the  OP bank and paying EMIs in terms of the agreement for loan. He further submits that the OPs 2 and 3 illegally deducted the loan amount from the salary account of the complainant as well as saving account of his wife. Such act of the OPs is illegal and in spite of repeated request the OPs did not obey the norms of the bank. Hence, the consumer case.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration and the submission advanced before us. Section 34 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as follows-

 A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

Complainant filed also an application U/s 34 (2) (b) of CP Act, 2019.

In our opinion, that will not help the case of the complainant as the OPs 2 and 3 deducted the loan amount from the salary account of the complainant and SB account of his wife. OPs 2 and 3 are carrying on  business at Serempore and Liluah respectively which are the outside of the jurisdiction of this commission.

 If the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Serempore and Liluah within the district of Hooghly and Howrah then too complainant can file claim petition in Barasat or Alipore. We cannot agree with this contention and it will lead to abstract consequences and lead to bench hunting. The OP-1 is not the branch office of ICICI Bank Ltd.  In our opinion, the expression of the branch office in the amendment section 34 (2) of the branch office of the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of the section 34 (2) (b) of the Act.

In the present case, the cause of action arose at Serempore and Howrah respectively from where the concerned bank deducting the loan amount from the salary account of the complainant as well as SB account of his wife. As such, Hooghly District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and / or Howrah District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission are the competent commission where the complainant may agitate his grievance.

For the reason stated herein above, we are not inclined to allow the prayer of the complainant u/s 34 (2) (b) of the CP Act, 2019.

Thus MA  being 234/2020 is disposed of.

As a consequences, the instant consumer complaint is not admitted and also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

However, liberty be given to the complainant to approach his grievance before the competent commission, that is Hooghly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if so desired.