Judgment:
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J.
1. The complainants in OP.No.324/2002 on the file of the District Forum Chennai (North) are the appellants.
2. The appellants, as complainants have approached the District Forum, for certain reliefs, as catalogued under paragraph 49 of the petition, alleging interalia, that non-refund of the Fixed Deposit amounts on maturity, deposited by their predecessors in interest, with the 1st opposite party bank, would amounts to deficiency in service, that the amount refunded/ returned, after negotiated settlement under the Lok Adalat, falls short in agreed interest, since they are bound to pay interest as agreed originally, and therefore suitable directions should be issued, for the payment of interest, as originally agreed, in addition to compensation, etc.
3. The opposite parties, opposed the claim, interalia on the ground, that the Forum, where the complainant has filed the case, has no jurisdiction, since the 1st opposite party, against whom the relief is sought for, is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Forum, and that the 2nd opposite party has no connection with the 1st opposite party, the further fact being the 2nd opposite party is also not properly sought to be represented by the person competent to represent, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum, taking the case for enquiry and considering the plea of the 1st opposite party, viz. the forum has no jurisdiction, took the said point for determination.
5. After hearing the arguments of either side, by going through the relevant provisions of the Act, as well as relying upon a decision rendered by the National commission, it came to the conclusion, that the Forum has no jurisdiction, thereby dismissed the complaint, as per the order dt.01.04.2005, thereby giving cause of action for the complainants, to come to this Commission, as appellant. While disposing the complaint, the District Forum has also observed âthis order will not prejudice in any way the parties, who are seeking remedy in the appropriate forum on meritsâ, thereby giving liberty also to the complainants to approach the proper forum for proper remedy. Despite this fact, the complainant having not satisfied, entertaining grievance, have impugned the order before this Commission.
6. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the respondents, perused the written submission, in addition to the documents filed by them and also the order of the District Forum.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit, that while construing the territorial jurisdiction, the District Forum has committed an error, in not properly understanding the Sec.11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore the order has to be set aside, then remanding the matter to the Forum concerned, for disposal on merit, since no finding has been given in respect of other points, raised by either side, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, supporting the findings rendered by the District Forum.
8. In this context, we have to see, (1) where the transaction had taken place, (2) who is answerable for the alleged claim by the claimant, and (3) whether including the 2nd opposite party would confer jurisdiction upon the forum, where the complaint has been filed.
9. Originally, the case was filed only against the 1st opposite party, who is having its office at Rajampet, Cuddapah District, Andrapradesh. After the filing of the complaint, it seems the Forum questioned, how the case could be filed against the person, who is permanently residing at Andrapradesh, in Chennai Forum. In order to overcome the query, and to confer the jurisdiction upon the Forum, the 2nd opposite party is added, and the cause title reads âState Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairman, 21 Rajaji Salai, Chennai â 60 001â. Though the 2nd opposite party has been included, there is no allegation against the 2nd opposite party, how the 2nd opposite party is liable to answer the claim of the complainant, except saying in paragraph 49 âThis Honble Forum, may be pleased to direct the Opposite partiesâ . In the cause of action paragraph also, it is not even stated how the 2nd opposite party is liable. An attempt is made to say, as if District Forum at Chennai will have jurisdiction, since the head office of the 1st opposite party is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Admittedly, as described in the cause title, the 2nd opposite party is not the head office for the 1st opposite party, and therefore, the question of 2nd opposite party carrying on business, within the jurisdiction of the Forum, where the case has been filed, will not confer jurisdiction upon the forum viz. Chennai (North). The District Forum, also has taken note of this point and has observed in its judgement, which reads âEven the cause title of the 2nd opposite party is incorrect as there is no Chairman working at No.21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, it is only the CGM, who is the highest official for the whole of Tamil Nadu, and the Chairman of State Bank of India is working only at Mumbai that too main Head Office and the nomenclature mentioned hereunder is incorrectâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.â. Therefore, on the ground, as if the 1st opposite party is doing business, under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party also, we cannot come to a conclusion that District Forum, Chennai (North), will have jurisdiction.
10. Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, defines the jurisdiction of the District Forum under Sec.11(2) âThe complaint should be instituted in a District Forum, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, actually and voluntarily resides, etc.â and under Sec.11(2) (b), where there are more than one opposite party, they actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business etc., or have a branch office. If these ingredients are available, the Forum can have jurisdiction, and not otherwise. Admittedly, as per the pleadings, the deposits, for which short fall of interest is claimed, which were deposited by the complainants predecessors in interest, only with the 1st opposite party bank, which is not having its business within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai (North) Forum. As adverted above, as indicated by the District Forum, and also the 2nd opposite party has not been properly represented. Further nowhere in the pleadings, which is the criterion to decide the jurisdiction, it is said that the 1st opposite party is under the control of the 2nd opposite party, or the 1st opposite partys transactions are controlled by the 2nd opposite party, having account with them, etc. In this view, it cannot be stated at any stretch of imagination, that the 1st opposite party is having connection with the 2nd opposite party, or the 2nd opposite party is carrying on business, having branch office at Rajampet, Andrapradesh, visa viz. Therefore, under Sec.11(2)(b), also we are unable to confer jurisdiction upon District Forum, Chennai (North), though by making abortive attempt, jurisdiction was conferred, which was rightly taken note of, and the complaint was dismissed, in which we are unable to find any error of law, warranting our interference. Hence the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in O.P.No.324/2005 dt.1.4.2005, with cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.