Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 161.
Instituted on : 27.03.2006.
Decided on : 23.07.2009.
Chandra Kant Sikka, Manager UCO Bank now posted at Branch Office Kharawar District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Standard Chartered Bank through Incharge/Manager India Cards Division, Scope Centre, 2nd Floor, Asia Building 1, Haddowa Road, Chennai-600 006, India.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAITN U/S 12 OF CONCUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
SMT. MEENA KUMARI, MEMBER.
SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.S.Bhola, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
JOGINDER SINGH JAKHAR, PRESIDENT:
According to the complainant a joint credit card no.4129059880156553 was issued in favour of complainant and his wife Asha Sikka. The said card was lost and opposite party was duly informed about it with the request to stop payment and also to convey the message to the stores/shops. It is further submitted that opposite party demanded the payment of Rs.3757/- which was paid by the complainant by way of cheque dated 21.6.05. The opposite party also informed vide letter dated 30.06.05, 20.08.05 and 20.09.05 that there is some overdue payment and the disputed amounts of Rs.32000/- dated 12.6.05 were shown in the letter dated 27 July 2005. At the time of making the payment of Rs.3757/- nothing was outstanding or overdue but the opposite party is writing the unnecessary letters. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service because the opposite party was duly informed about the loss of card which is clear from the letter dated 18.6.05 received by the opposite party. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite party not to demand/recover any amount from the complainant, not to harass the complainant because nothing is payable by the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
After notice opposite party appeared, filed its written reply submitting therein preliminary objections that the transactions which have been taken place as per the records of the complainant are before the time when the loss was reported to the bank. That no cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum and the opposite party does not have nay branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it is submitted that that the card in question in the name of wife of the complainant was reported to the opposite party to have been lost on 16.6.05. The letter written by the complainant on dated 16.6.05 for loss of card was received by the opposite party on 18.06.2005. Hence the contention raised by the complainant regarding the loss of card on 12.6.05 is an after thought with an intention to avoid payment of legitimate dues of the bank. It is further submitted that if it is presumed that the card was lost on 12.6.05, loss of which was reported on 16.6.05 the bank cannot be still held responsible for these transaction which have been made by the complainant before report of the loss of the card. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.P1, documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P11 and closed his evidence.
Ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and other material aspect of the case very carefully.
After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that it is not disputed that the office of the opposite party is situated at Channai. Moreover, opposite party neither have any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor any cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum. In this regard as per the authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant reported in 1995(2)CPC 428, titled Yogdhyan Singh Bansal Vs. Finolex Pipes Ltd. and other, H on’ble State Commission Chandigarh has held that and the main grievances was against the respondents who had their offices out of Haryana State- As per provisions of Section 11(2) Distt. Forum Hissar had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint” and as per IV(2008) CPJ 159 (NC) titled R.B.Jagdish Prasad & Co. Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. as per which Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Territorial jurisdiction-Whole cause of action arose in Muzaffarnagar-Both parties located in Muzaffarnagar. Complaint could not have been filed in Delhi, because Head office of Insurance Company situated in Delhi”.
Keeping in view the above referred case laws which are apliable on the facts and circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that complaint is not tenable. Accordingly we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.
Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court:
23.07.2009.
………………………….
Joginder Singh Jakhar.
…………………………
Meena Kumari, Member.
…………………………
Virendra Kumar Jain, Member.
vs
Tags: Standard Chartered Bank