DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST

   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 780/2019

D.No.________________________                     Dated: ________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. SUPARNA DEYW/o SH. TAPAN DEY,

R/o CC-18, B, SHALIMAR BAGH,DELHI.                                                      … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

UCO BANK,

RANCHI ZONAL OFFICE,

RAJENDRA JAWAN BHAWAN

CUM SAINIK BAZAR, MAIN ROAD,

RANCHI-834001.

ALSO AT: AA-29, SHALIMAR BAGH,DELHI-110088.                      … OPPOSITE PARTY

CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

                MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

                                                                    Date of Institution: 04.10.2019                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Date of decision: 04.12.2019

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

1.       We have heard the Counsel for the complainant on the point of territorial jurisdiction and have perused the record carefully.

2.       After going through the pleading and arguments on admission, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaintalleging deficiency in service on the part of OP on the ground that on 11.02.1999, Bijitendra Ghosh invested in a FD with OP bank a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 11.5% p.a. with maturity term of 72 months, the FD maturing on 11.02.2005 FDR no. 915601/829/98-

CC No. 780/2019                                                                           Page 1 of 5

          99 and the FDR was sent up with instructions to pay on either or survivor basis and the FD was in the name of Bijitendra Ghosh as the first holder and his daughter Ms. Suparna Dey/formally known as Gopa/Suparna Ghosh the joint holder. The complainant further alleged that Smt. Bithika Ghosh wife of the first holder and mother of the complainant died on 05.08.2002 and the first holder died intestate on 14.10.2002 and the complainant being only person entitled to the proceeds of the deposit claimed the proceeds of the funds in the deposit after maturity and by letter dated 09.05.2005, the bank informed the complainant that the Court has stopped payment. Thereafter, the bank sent aforesaid letter without verifying if there was an order actually in existence and the conduct of the bank indicates collusion and fraud committed by the bank officials with interested 3^rd parties and such denial of funds to the rightful person amounts to manipulation of records and the banking system is based on trust and faith, the bank failed to act as custodian of public money for which they are accountable. The complainant further alleged that the bank by denying the complainant her legal right acted in anirresponsible and negligent manner and OP is a government owned commercial bank should function fairly. The complainant further alleged that the complainant had been named in the FD by her nick name Gopa Ghosh and OP on 03.01.2018 asked for several documents before entertaining the claim of the complainant and all documents were

CC No. 780/2019                                                                           Page 2 of 5

          duly provided by the complainant which included original copy of affidavit confirming that Gopa Ghosh, Suparna Ghosh and Suparna Dey are one and the same person, original copy of indemnity bond, original FDR no. 915601/829/98-99, original passbook no.226010 0003404 and death certificate of first holder. The complainant further alleged that the complainant requested the bank by giving all documents requested for releasing the payment, however, the bank failed to release the payment and though the complainant contacted the bank  did not take any step to pay the amount and compelling the complainant to write a letter on 11.06.2018 to OP to transfer the proceeds of the FD into her account. The complainant further alleged that after a delay of 14 years OP bank transferred the proceeds of FD into her account without giving any details of the basis of calculation of the amount that was transferred. The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP and has claimed direction against OP to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the interest on delayed payment @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity and has also claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation cost.

3.       Before going into the merits of the case, we are deciding the main question of territorial jurisdiction. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard.

CC No. 780/2019                                                                           Page 3 of 5

4.       The complainant’s father as per allegation levelled in the complaint invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 72 months in a fixed deposit with OP bank and the bank issued fixed deposit receipt at Ranchi. The complainant is the daughter and 2^nd holder of the said fixed deposit receipt. The complainant has alleged that OP bank has delayed the transfer of the maturity amount of the fixed deposit in her account and as such cause of action, if any, has arisen at Ranchi i.e. beyond the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.

5.       It is also on record that the complainant has earlier filed another complaint bearing CC No.668/2019 against OP bank on the same allegations and the said complaint was withdrawn by the complainant and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.09.2019, however, liberty was granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. In these regards, the case law relied on by Ld. Counsel for the complainant in case entitled B. Mohanlal Naik (Dr.) Vs. District Consumer Forum &Ors. bearing citation no.Legalcrystal.com/431718 (Andhra Pradesh) reported in 2009 (3)ALT634 is not applicable considering the facts of this case.

6.       The issue of territorial jurisdiction of maintainability of the consumer complaint is a basic issue which goes to the root of the matter and has to be decided first before undertaking any further proceedings as held by Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi in

CC No. 780/2019                                                                           Page 4 of 5

          Braham Prakash V/s Vikas Yadav &Anr.1 (2010) CPJ 136 and in this case it was held by the Hon’ble Commission that it is a settled law as to the maintainability of the complaint being beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum it was the duty of the District Forum to have decided the issue of maintainability of the Complaint.

7.       Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, no cause of action can be said to have been arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Company Ltd.2010 CTJ 2 (SC) (CP) this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Forum having competent jurisdiction and the period of limitation may be condoned.

8.       Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to Record Room

Announced on 4^thday of December, 2019

(BARIQ AHMAD)                          (USHA KHANNA)                 (M.K. GUPTA)

  MEMBER                                           MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

CC No. 780/2019                                                                           Page 5 of 5

UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET