PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
That the Complainant is displaced person and he was allotted certain evacuee agricultural land by the Government of India in lieu of loss of land in Pakistan. The Complainant was allotted evacuee land from village Taloja Panchanand, which was acquired by the Government. As meager compensation was awarded to the Complainant, the Complainant preferred LAR No.378 of 1986 in District Court of Raigad at Alibag under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Hon’ble District Court, Raigad at Alibag, enhanced the said compensation. Then both the parties filed appeals against order of District Court in the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay. The said appeal has been decided in favour of the Complainant by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dtd.31/03/05.
2) The Opposite Parties are the Nationalized Bank. The Opposite Party No.1 is the main branch of Union Bank of India and Opposite Party No.2 is its Panvel Branch. It is submitted that the Complainant was given liberty by the District Court to withdraw the said amount deposited by the SLAO, against furnishing Bank Guarantee. The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and inquired for Bank Guarantee. Opposite Party No.2 agreed to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,04,000/- on condition that the Complainant will deposit said enhanced compensation with Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 will allow the Complainant to withdraw 50% of the said amount and 50% i.e. Rs.1,02,000/- will be invested in “Deposit Reinvestment Certificate” (hereinafter referred to as the said “DRC”) towards security of the Bank Guarantee. The Complainant agreed to the said term and accordingly Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,04,000/- on behalf of Complainant was given by the Opposite Party No.2 in the District Court as desire by them. Thereafter, the District Court released the enhance compensation of Rs.2,03,746/- in favour of Opposite Party No.2.
3) The Opposite Party No.2 invested sum of Rs.1,02,000/- in the DRC for initial period of 36 months which carry quarterly interest @10% p.a. commencing from 04/10/1993 to 04/10/1996. The Opposite Party No.2 issued DRC No.3861448/4658, dtd.04/10/1993 which was to be renewed after every 3 years with agreed quarterly interest till the disposal of the Court proceedings. The original DRC is in the custody of Opposite Party No.2 till date. It is submitted that remaining balance amount of Rs.1,01,746/- was credited in the Complainant’s SB A/c. No.8839 with Opposite Party No.2 and same was appropriated as under –
a) Bank Guarantee Commission in advance recovered @ 0.90% on Rs.2,04,000/- for 36 months commencing from
04/10/1993 to 04/10/1996 Rs. 5508-00.
b) Bank recovered cost of Stamp Paper Rs. 80-00.
c) Complainant allowed to withdraw amount Rs. 95000-00
d) Balance in SB A/c. No.8839 Rs. 1158-00
-------------------- Rs.101746-00
============
4) It is submitted that the said DRC amount Rs.1,02,000/- was matured on 04/10/1996 and its maturity value was Rs.1,37,180/-. Opposite Party No.2 deducted Bank Guarantee Commission of Rs.5,508/- in advance from the said matured value for the period commencing 04/10/1996 to 04/01/2000 and renewed balance amount of Rs.1,31,672/- - @ 13% p.a. for 39 months from 04/1/96 to 04/01/2000 with maturity value of Rs.1,99,556/-. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.2 never supplied the abstract ledger to the Complainant showing details of interest income credited and TDS debited for the said period from 04/01/96 to 04/01/2000, despite various demands made by the Complainant.
5) It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 without his consent and without his knowledge transferred sum of Rs.17,486/- out of the maturity value of Rs.1,99,556/- of the said DRC for opening new FDR No.4830846/1771 for the purpose of recovery of Bank Guarantee Commission. According to the Complainant he had never authorized Opposite Party No.1 to open FDR for the said purpose. The action of Opposite Party No.2 to transfer sum of Rs.17,486/- from maturity value of Rs.1,99,576/- of DRC in FDR is wrong and malafide and it is in breach of terms of contract with view of denied quarterly interest on reinvestment scheme of the said DRC. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
6) It is further alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 had recovered TDS of Rs.7,534/- on the interest income of Rs.67,882/- for the period from 04/10/96 to 04/01/2000 which was part of maturity value of Rs.1,90,576/-. However, till today Opposite Party has not provided the said TDS Certificates despite his several requests. It also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. It is submitted that Bank Guarantee Commission of Rs.5,508/- for the 04/01/2000 to 04/01/2003 may only be deducted from the maturity value of Rs.1,99,556/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,94,048/- was available for further investment @ 10.5% p.a. as per the terms and condition of the said DRC for next 36 months commencing from 04/01/2000 to 04/01/2003 with the matured value of Rs.2,64,819/- as on 03/01/2003.
7) It is submitted that the Complainant wrote letter dtd.27/08/03 to Opposite Party No.2 and thereby requested to furnish details of interest on DRC of Rs.2,38,190/- and FDR of R.17,046/- for period 04/01/2000 to 03/01/2003. Opposite Party No.2 by their letter dtd.01/09/03 stated that as per the guidelines of their head office they have to renew the over due deposit on the day to day basis up to date and to the date overdue deposit, they renewed DRC and FDR. On 17/03/03 which was due on 04/01/03. It was further informed by the Opposite Party transferred Rs.13,060/- from the DRC to FDR to recover their Bank Guarantee Commission and Rs.146/- transferred to TDS Head and sent Ledger Abstract to the Complainant. After receipt of the Ledger Abstract for the first time the Complainant came to know about blunder committed by the Opposite Parties.
8) It is submitted that from time to time Opposite Party No.2 deducted TDS on the interest and sent 3 TDS Certificate of Rs.2,295/- for the period 04/01/03 to 31/03/04. Opposite Party deducted TDS Rs.7,534/- for the period 04/10/96 to 04/01/2000. However, no TDS Certificate has been furnished to the Complainant. The Opposite Party had also deducted TDS amount of Rs.8,858/- for the period 04/01/2000 to 04/01/03. However, Opposite Party furnished only Certificate for Rs.2,736 and no Certificate for balance amount of Rs.6,122/- was furnished. By letter dtd.11/08/04, the Complainant informed Opposite Parties to comply with the requisition made in the aforesaid letter, but Opposite Party no.2 did not comply. Therefore, Complainant by his Advocate’s letter dtd.05/01/05 recorded the aforesaid facts and called upon Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to correct wrong doing and correct amounts as per rate of interest recorded on the said DRC. Opposite Party No.2 by its letter dtd.21/02/05 gave their clarification and falsely alleged that the said FDR was created with the consent of the Complainant. Further it is alleged that FDR was created for the benefit of Complainant to reduce his burden to arrange funds for Bank Guarantee Commission. According to the Complainant, there was no need of creating said FDR. It is submitted that Opposite Parties admitted their mistake of excess deduction of TDS and interest thereon. However, it was alleged by the Opposite Party that they had sent all the TDS Certificate to the Complainant which is absolutely false. The Complainant sent reply to the Opposite Party No.2’s letter dtd.22/03/05 and pointed out excess deduction of TDS and not furnishing of TDS Certificates.
9) It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Parties renewed the said DRC very late i.e. on 17/03/03 instead of 04/01/03. As such interest rate prevailed on 17/03/03 was @ 7.5% p.a. It was informed that extra benefit of interest has been give to the Senior Citizen which was about 1% extra p.a.
10) It is case of the Complainant that transfer of Rs.13,060/- from the maturity value of DRC into FDR was without any authority or written consent of the Complainant and it was created with malafide intention to deny quarterly interest to the Complainant provided under DRC. The Opposite Parties tried to wriggle out terms of DRC. The Opposite Parties has also deducted excess amount towards TDS and not furnished most of the TDS Certificates and it amounts to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. According to the Complainant, maturity value of DRC on 03/01/06 comes to Rs.3,30,216/-.
11) It is submitted by the Complainant that appeals filed by the Complainant as well as the Government in the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay against the order passed by the District Court were disposed off in favour of Complainant and amount of compensation was further enhanced. The Hon’ble High Court passed said order dtd.31/03/05. The Complainant by his letter dtd.24/12/05 informed Opposite Parties regarding the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and requested to pay maturity amount after deducting TDS on 04/01/06. As per Bank Guarantee, the Opposite Parties failed to pay maturity amount on 04/01/06, so the Complainant issued notice to the Opposite Parties through his advocate on 24/01/06 and called upon Opposite Parties to pay maturity value failing which they will be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. Opposite Parties did not comply with the notice.
12) The Complainant received TDS Certificate dtd.17/04/07 and 01/08/07 i.e. after filing of return with Income Tax Authorities and therefore, he could not claim the said amount from Income Tax Authority. The Opposite Parties have also failed to furnish ledger abstract for the last 3 years showing quarterly interest income and created TDS debit under DRC. The Complainant pointed out to the Opposite Parties that the District Court has cancelled the said Bank Guarantee on 15/05/07. However, maturity amount was not credited. Opposite Parties sent TDS Certificates alongwith four statements on 13/09/07. There were several mistakes in the statements and hence, the Complainant by his letter dtd.05/10/07 pointed out aforesaid mistakes to the Opposite Party. It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Parties have wrongly credited interest in DRC. The Opposite Parties in their letter dtd.21/02/05 have admitted that they have debited Rs.2,943/- excess, however, the statement was not corrected.
13) It is submitted by the Complainant that due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties the Complainant has suffered heavy loss. According to the Complainant, he is entitled to maturity value of Rs.3,30,216/-. The Complainant has prayed to direct Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant sum of Rs.90,640/- being maturity amount of DRC as stated in the particulars of claim with interest @18% p.a. from 18/10/07 till payment. The Complainant has requested to direct Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental torture & agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
14) The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have filed their written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that allegations made in the complaint are false and complaint is liable to be dismissed as the Complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum. It is contended that in this case the Complainant had transaction with Union Bank of India, Panvel Branch. The Complainant had joined Opposite Party No.1 with malafide intention. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. It is falsely alleged by the Complainant that he had never authorized Opposite Party No.2 to open FDR of Rs.17,486/-. FDR was created as request and instruction given by the Complainant. It is submitted that there is no cause of action to the complaint and complaint is also barred by law of limitation.
15) Opposite Parties have raised contention that Opposite Party No.2 Branch is situated at Panvel. The DRC was created pursuant to Bank Guarantee furnished by the Opposite Party No.2 Bank to the District Judge, Raigad, Alibag. The address given by the Complainant relating to the DRC is of Taloja, Panvel, District Raigad. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint and on this ground complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16) At the request of Complainant Opposite Party No.2 Bank issued Bank Guarantee No.73/93, dtd.01/10/1993 for Rs.2,04,000/- with 50% margin and commission @ 0.90% p.a. to enable Complainant to claim land acquisition compensation amount from District Court, Alibag. According to the Opposite Parties, one of the condition of issuance of Guarantee was that the 50% of compensation proceeds being Rs.1,02,000/- would be kept as a margin for the Guarantee obligation undertaken by the Bank. As instructed by the Complainant, margin money was to be kept in a interest bearing deposit account namely DRC for period of 36 months. It was agreed that charges and commission due and payable for the Bank Guarantee obligation incurred by the bank would be deducted from the interest accrued in the said DRC and amount remaining will be reinvested. It is submitted that the Complainant had expressly consented for appropriation cut of interest accrued towards guarantee commission and hence, bank was entitled to commission of Bank Guarantee obligation undertaken. In the exercise of that right, bank made appropriation in the maturity amount and the remaining amount was re-invested. The reinvested amount at the time of renewal was Rs.1,31,672/-. The Opposite Parties has given particulars maturity value of DRC less commission and net amount available for renewal of DRC. It is further submitted that FDR of Rs.17,486/- was created out of the maturity proceeds as on 04/01/2000 with the consent of Complainant, duly discharged by the Complainant, to make Bank Guarantee commission out of the interest payable thereon half yearly basis to the bank.
17) The Opposite Parties have given particulars of the TDS deduced on interest. According to the Opposite Party, TDS Certificate with complete details were sent to the Complainant by post at the address available with the bank. The Opposite Parties have denied the allegations made by the Complainant regarding creation of FDR without consent and allegations regarding TDS Certificates. It is submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
18) The Complainant and Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of evidence. The Complainant applied for amendment of complaint and the said application for amendment was allowed. The Opposite Parties have filed additional written statement to the amendment complaint. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties have filed their respective written arguments. We heard oral submission of Ld.Advocates for both the parties. Ld. Advocate for Opposite Party has vehemently submitted that no cause of action for this complaint has taken place within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, this Forum as no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.
19) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide this complaint ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs from Opposite Parties as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- It is case of the Complainant that he is displaced person and he was allotted certain evacuee agricultural land by the Government of India in lieu of loss of land in Pakistan as provided under the Displaced Person (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Complainant was allotted evacuee land from village Taloja Panchanand, in District Raigad. The Compensation which was awarded to the Complainant was meager. So the Complainant preferred LAR No.378 of 1986 in District Court of Raigad at Alibag under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Hon’ble Court enhanced said compensation and the Respondent in the said LAR L.A. reference (Special Land Acquisition Officer) deposited the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,03,746/- in the District Court, Raigad. Against the said order both the parties filed appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay. The said appeal has been decided in favour of the Complainant by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dtd.31/03/05. The aforesaid facts stated in the complaint are undisputed fact.
It is the case of the Complainant that he was given liberty by District Court, Raigad at Alibag to withdraw the said amount deposited by SLAO against furnishing Bank Guarantee. Then the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and requested for Bank Guarantee. Opposite Party No.2 agreed to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.2,04,000/- on condition that the Complainant would deposit the said enhance compensation with Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 will allow the Complainant to withdraw 50% of the said amount and balance 50% amount i.e. Rs.1,02,000/- was to be invested in “Deposit Reinvestment Certificate” (DRC) towards security of the Bank Guarantee. The aforesaid facts are also undisputed fact. According to the Opposite Parties, at the instruction of the Complainant the Opposite Party No.2 bank had issued Bank Guarantee bearing No.74/93, dtd.01/10/93 for Rs.2,04,000/- with 50% margin and commission @ 0.90% p.a. to enable the Complainant to claim land acquisition compensation amount from the District Court, Alibag.
In this complaint the Complainant has raised first issue regarding creation of FDR of Rs.17,486/- out of the maturity value of Rs.1,99,556/- of DRC. It is alleged by the Complainant the aforesaid FDR was created by the Opposite Party No.2 Bank without the consent of the Complainant and thereby the Complainant has suffered financial loss. Second issue raised by the Complainant is regarding TDR deducted by the Opposite Party on the interest earned by the Complainant on aforesaid deposit.
It is submitted by the Ld.Advocate Shri. Vipul Shukla that Opposite Party No.2 is Branch Office of Union Bank of India, situated at Panvel and Opposite Party No.1 is the Head Office of Union Bank of India. Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has relied upon the provisions of Sub-Section 2 of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, and submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is the Head Office of Opposite Party No.2 and it is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum and is carrying on its business, therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.
On the contrary, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties has submitted that even according to the Complainant evacuee land which was allotted to the Complainant was from Raigad District. The Complainant being aggrieved by the compensation had preferred LAR before the District Court, Raigad. The District Court, Raigad was pleased to enhance compensation. However, both the parties i.e. the Complainant and SLAO being aggrieved by the said order of District Court Raigad, filed appeals before the Hon’ble High Court. It is not in dispute that District Court, Raigad allow the Complainant to withdraw deposit amount of compensation from the Court against furnishing Bank Guarantee. At the request of Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 furnished Bank Guarantee on certain terms and conditions. It is grievance of the Complainant that in connection with the said Bank Guarantee there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and therefore, present complaint is filed before this Forum. It is submitted that even according to the Complainant, no cause of action for this complaint took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The Complainant in this case has unnecessarily joined Opposite Party No.1 as a party to this proceeding with malafide intention to file this complaint before this Forum. The Complainant had no transaction with Opposite Party No.1 and as such, Opposite Party No.1 is not necessary party. It is submitted that merely because of Opposite Party No.1 being main office of Opposite Party No2, situated within territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, this Forum cannot exercise jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. In support of her contention Ld.Advocate for Opposite Parties has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,2009(6) ALL MR 1014. In aforesaid case of Sonic Surgical V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that -
“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 filed 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 wherein 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.”
As discussed above in this no cause of action or part of cause of action for this complaint took place within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In view of aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. merely because Opposite Party No.1 head office of Opposite Party No.2 is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, it cannot be said that this Forum have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Hence, we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. In the result we answer point no.1 in the negative.
Point No.2 :- As this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide this complaint, the Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from this Forum against the Opposite Party. Hence, point no.2 answer in the negative.
As this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, it is necessary to return the complaint to the Complainant to present it before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Therefore, we passed following order -
O R D E R
i.This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint bearing No.160/2005. Therefore, this complaint forthwith be returned to the Complainant for presenting the same before the Consumer Fora having jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.
ii.No order as to cost.
iii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
