Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/1708

SHYAM SWAROOP - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL  

                           

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 14.08.2012 passed in C.C.No. 457/2008 by District Commission, Bhopal)

 

SHYAM SWAROOP SHRIVASTAVA,

S/O SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,

R/O D-316, MINAL RESIDENCY, J.K.ROAD,

BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                       ...        APPELLANT

 

                      Versus

 

1. MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD.

    FIRST FLOOR, DURGA PLAZA,

    DEWAS ROAD, UJJAIN (M.P.)

 

2. MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD.

    FIRST FLOOR, ALANKAR PALACE,

    NEAR PRAGATI PETROL PUMP,

    ZONE-II, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)462 016

 

3. MANAGER, HEAD/CORPORATE OFFICE,

    ICICI BANK TOWER, BANDRA-KURLA

    COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051                                                      …       RESPONDENTS                         

 

BEFORE :

 

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI               :     PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY       :      MEMBER

           HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA  :     MEMBER

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

                Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

             

O R D E R

(Passed On 05.08.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:                      

                         This appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer

-2-

Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.457/2008, whereby his complaint has dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission, Bhopal.

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant/appellant  took house loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party no.1 bank and thereafter again took loan of Rs.1,52,000/- on floating rate of interest and he made repayment of loan regularly. It is alleged that the opposite party bank not reduced the rate of interest as per prevailing rate of interest and demanded additional amount. It is alleged that he on 12.12.2006 he paid Rs.6,57,374/- by demand draft and Rs.7,374/- in cash towards total loan amount. It is alleged that towards loan of Rs.5 lac, Rs.24,196.93/- were charged extra similarly towards loan of Rs.1.52 lac, Rs.3,423.50/- were charged extra. The complainant/appellant therefore approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service, on part of the opposite parties seeking maturity relief of Rs.28,220.43/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3.                The opposite parties/respondents resisted the complaint on the ground that entire transaction took place at Ujjain therefore, the District Commission, Bhopal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further stated that entire loan was repaid and the account was closed

-3-

therefore, the complainant no remains a consumer of the opposite parties-bank. It is further submitted that the entire charges were taken as per agreement and therefore no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction without perusing the complaint and the documents. The District Commission failed to consider this important aspect that the opposite party no.1 bank had a branch office at Bhopal and the property for which loan was taken is situated at Bhopal and therefore, part of cause of action arose at Bhopal, thus, the District Commission Bhopal had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5.                Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the loan obtained at Ujjain, entire transaction took place at Ujjain and the dispute arose at Ujjain, therefore, the District Commission, Bhopal rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by territorial jurisdiction. 

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record we find that the complainant took house loan from the opposite party no.1 bank-at Ujjain, the opposite party no.2 at Bhopal is Regional Office and the opposite party no.3 is head office of the bank at

-4-

Mumbai. The complainant had filed number of documents including statements, his letters addressed to Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ujjain the opposite party no.1 and his affidavit. The opposite parties had filed reply preliminary objections and Loan Agreement Letter.

8.                Admittedly, the complainant took house loan from opposite party no.1-bank at Ujjain. First loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was obtained at floating rate of interest on 22.08.2003 to be repaid in 300 EMIs from 01.08.2003 to 01.07.2028 and second loan for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- was obtained at floating rate of interest on 03.09.2004 to be repaid in 299 EMIs from 01.11.2004 to 01.09.2029.

9.                We have perused the documents submitted by the complainant, there is a letter dated 02.12.2006 of Chief Manager, SBI Shajapur addressed to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Ujjain enclosing a draft amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- towards settlement of loan of the complainant and it was requested to deliver the title deed to the complainant in relation to property situated at Bhopal. There is another letter dated 12.12.2006 of the complainant/appellant addressed to The Manager, ICICI Bank, Ujjain regarding submission of cheque of SBI and cash amount against foreclosure of home loans. In the said letter he made a request to the bank to close my loan account and to issue NOC. The complainant also sent legal registered notice to opposite party no.1 bank at Ujjain.

-5-

10.              Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) while dealing with a case of State Commission wherein fire broke out in godown at Ambala, insurance policy taken at Ambala, claim was made at Ambala and the complaint was filed at Chandigarh has held in para 8 as under:

                   “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has 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 at Ambala, then too the complainant can file 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 where 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.”  

                     

11.              From the above decision, it is clear that merely because the opposite party has a branch office at a particular place will not be a foundation for territorial jurisdiction.  Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he had made claim at Ujjain but the property is at Bhopal, in our opinion, this will not constitute an action to create part cause of action at Bhopal as the loan was taken at Ujjain, entire transaction took place at Ujjain and the dispute regarding excess charge also arose at Ujjain.

-6-

It is relevant to mention here that the said property (house) is owned by the complainant/appellant for which he sought loan therefore the issued regarding territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided on the basis of property situated or where the complainant resides. It is only to be seen that where the opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business and in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 11(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Here in the present case, the cause of action wholly arose at Ujjain.

12.              Thus in our considered view, the District Commission, Bhopal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  We are not agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

13.              In the similar facts and circumstances, the Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Cox & Kings Ltd Vs Ansuyaben Desai & Ors I (2022) CPJ 96 (Guj) has held that since the

complainant deposited the amount of tour at Surat, therefore, the Surat District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the aforesaid case, the complainant booked a tour for Bangkok and deposited the amount for the same at Surat, thereafter the dispute arose between the parties at Surat, the Gujrat State Commission held that payment of the tour was deposited with Surat Branch that is why the case of action arisen at

-7-

Surat, So the Surat District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

14.              Therefore, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the District Commission regarding dismissal of complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

15.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission, it is therefore upheld.

16.              In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

          (A. K. Tiwari)    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member           Member                    Member