S. Krishnamoorthi Vs. Hdfc Bank, Represented by Its Manager

S. Krishnamoorthi vs Hdfc Bank, Represented by Its Manager

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Mar 07, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1148157

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1148157
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. a.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member
Decided On: Mar 07, 2014
Case Number: F.A.No. 220 of 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Krishnamoorthi

Respondent

Hdfc Bank, Represented by Its Manager

Excerpt

.....bank and subsequently the opposite party demanded payment of dues for the already settled loan alleging deficiency of service. the complainant filed the complaint before the district forum, chengalpattu and the district forum heard the petitioner observed in its order that mere sending of post dated cheques for the payment itself from kancheepuram does not give the cause of action invoking the jurisdiction of consumer court, chengalpattu and thereby directed the complainant to seek remedy where the opposite partys bank at vellore having territorial jurisdiction and thereby rejected the complaint. 3. aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal by contending that he had availed loan through the centurion bank of punjab at kancheepuram during the year 2007 and subsequently as the bank merged with the hdfc bank having its branch at vellore thereby he received demand notice from the opposite party at vellore and since he had purchased the two wheeler at kancheepuram from one sharatha motors by availing loan through the centurion bank of punjab at kancheepuram and issued the post dated cheques towards emi installments and thereby a part of cause of action arose at kancheepuram as per sec.11(2) (c ) of the consumer protection act and the district forum erroneously rejected the complaint. 4. we have heard the appellant and carefully gone through the materials placed before this commission and on perusal of the type set of the appellant we are able to point out that the complainant having purchased two wheeler at kancheepuam for which he has issued post dated cheques which are said to have been encashed and adjusted by the opposite party as per the statement of account relied upon and since the complainant contended that he had availed loan from the erstwhile centurion bank of punjab at kancheepuram which is said to have been merged with the hdfc bank and not having branch at kancheepuram being the merger bank at vellore and he received demand.....

Full Judgment

(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum rejected the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CCSR.No.210/2012, dated 08.04.2013.)

A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member

The complainant is the appellant.

2. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chengalpattu which was assigned as CCSR.No.210/2012 and it was placed before us by the registry for considering the maintainability of the complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the opposite party regarding the hire purchase loan availed by the complainant through the bank for the purchase of two wheeler from one Sharadha Motors, Kancheepuram since all the post dated cheques issued for EMIs were encashed by the bank and subsequently the opposite party demanded payment of dues for the already settled loan alleging deficiency of service. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, Chengalpattu and the District Forum heard the petitioner observed in its order that mere sending of post dated cheques for the payment itself from Kancheepuram does not give the cause of action invoking the jurisdiction of Consumer Court, Chengalpattu and thereby directed the complainant to seek remedy where the opposite partys bank at Vellore having territorial jurisdiction and thereby rejected the complaint.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal by contending that he had availed loan through the Centurion Bank of Punjab at Kancheepuram during the year 2007 and subsequently as the bank merged with the HDFC Bank having its branch at Vellore Thereby he received demand notice from the opposite party at Vellore and since he had purchased the two wheeler at Kancheepuram from one Sharatha Motors by availing loan through the Centurion Bank of Punjab at Kancheepuram and issued the post dated cheques towards EMI installments and thereby a part of cause of action arose at Kancheepuram as per Sec.11(2) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act and the District Forum erroneously rejected the complaint.

4. We have heard the appellant and carefully gone through the materials placed before this Commission and on perusal of the type set of the appellant we are able to point out that the complainant having purchased two wheeler at Kancheepuam for which he has issued post dated cheques which are said to have been encashed and adjusted by the opposite party as per the statement of account relied upon and since the complainant contended that he had availed loan from the erstwhile Centurion Bank of Punjab at Kancheepuram which is said to have been merged with the HDFC bank and not having branch at Kancheepuram being the merger bank at Vellore and he received demand notice for the already settled loan, from these details we are able to point out that a part of cause of action arose at Kancheepuram as per Sec.11(2)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereby the District Forum, Chengalpattu is very well having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but erroneously rejected the complaint. Since the complainant has not elaborately averred in his complaint about the details of Centurion Bank of Punjab and merger of the same with the opposite party bank which would be the proper averments to consider the question of jurisdiction, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the complainant / appellant must be given suitable direction in this regard. Accordingly

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum passed in CCSR.No.210/2012, dated 08.04.2013.

The District Forum is directed to return the rejected complaint in original along with documents if any to the complainant in order to represent the same with necessary amendments and incorporation of details regarding the transactions with Centurion Bank of Punjab Branch at Kancheepuram.

On representation, the District Forum is directed to entertain the complaint if otherwise in order and to proceed further as per law.

The appellant / complainant is directed to represent the complaint after incorporating necessary details regarding the jurisdiction particulars within 15 days to the District Forum, Chengalpattu.

No order as to costs in the appeal.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties S. Krishnamoorthi vs Hdfc Bank, Represented by Its Manager Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge R. Regupathi, President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. a.K. Annamal...