Per K.V.Krishna Murthy:
An agreement as per Ex.A1 was entered into between the parties in the present proceedings on 20-04-2011, whereby on consideration of having received Rs.1,50,000.00 from the complainant herein the OP Company has agreed to pay back this amount to the complainant by issuing the post dated cheque 02-4-2014. A condition was stipulated to the fact that the complainant should intimate the OP Company one month prior to encashment of the cheque. On 17-09-2013, the complainant wrote a letter as per Ex.A4 requested for issue of multicity cheque. The Company agreed for this request and issued cheque No.795379, which belongs to the account of the association company Guru Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd., as could be seen from the letter Ex.A7 dated: 30-09-2013. The cheque Ex.A2 was presented to State Bank of Hyderabad, Talakal Branch in Koppal district. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation for payment. The endorsement issued by the service branch of the Bank dated: 15-5-2014 vide Ex.A11 discloses the cheque was dishonoured on account of the cheque amount exceeds an arrangement. A notice was issued on 13-6-2014 as per Ex.A12 to the Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Pvt.Ltd., Bangalore and also its branch at Koppal. The notice issued to Koppal branch returned unserved.
2. The complainant claims compensation under the following heads;
- Fixed Deposit amount - Rs.1,50,000.00
- Interest for one year - Rs. 19,500.00
- Compensation for mental & physical
Harassment - Rs. 25,000.00
- Compensation for deficiency in service - Rs. 50,000.00
- Litigation & other expenses - Rs. 5,000.00
TOTAL - Rs. 2,49,500.00
3. Main contention taken in the written version is that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Complain. In support of this contention, following decisions are cited
- Sonie Surgical V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., - 2010 CTJ (2) SC) (CP)
- New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V/s Pavel Garg S/o: Shri Ram Garg – 2010 (2) CCC 142 (NS).
4. According to the complainant, dishonour of the cheque issued by Guru Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd., has been dishonoured at Talakal Branch of State Bank of Hyderabad and therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
6. In view of statement of law laid-down by the Supreme Court in the first mentioned decision cited by the counsel for the OP Company, this Forum will not get jurisdiction to entertain this company merely because there is a branch office in Koppal town. The cheque dishonoured at Talakal Branch but the cheque has not been issued by Guru Teak Investment Pvt.Ltd. That was a cheque issued Guru Agro Farm Pvt.Ltd.,, which is not a party to the present proceedings. The endorsement, Ex.A11 clearly discloses that the cheque was dishonoured at the account maintained by a company in West of Chord Road Branch, Bangalore. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this District Forum. The complaint is therefore not maintainable. Consequently the complaint stands dismissed.
// ANNEXURE //
List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant / Respondent.
Ex.A.1 | Agreement | 02-04-2011 |
Ex.A.2 | Original Che.No. 795379 | 02-04-2014 |
Ex.A.3 | Original Che.No.012424 | 02-04-2014 |
Ex.A.4 | Letter to OP No.1 by complainant | 17-09-2013 |
Ex.A.5 | Postal acknowledgment | 19-09-2013 |
Ex.A.6 | Letter to OP No.1 by complainant | 13-08-2013 |
Ex.A.7 | Letter to complainant by OP No.1 | 30-09-2013 |
Ex.A.8 | Letter to OP No.2 by complainant | 28-02-2014 |
Ex.A.9 | Un-served Postal envelop to OP No.2 | - |
Ex.A.10 | Bank Counter-folio | - |
Ex.A.11 | Bank endorsement | 15-05-2014 |
Ex.A.12 | Copy of legal notice | 13-06-2014 |
Ex.A.13 | Postal receipts (2) | 13-06-2014 |
Ex.A.14 | Postal acknowledgment | 16-06-2014 |
Ex.A.15 | Un-served Postal envelop | - |
Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.
P.W.1 | Sri Gurunagouda S/o: Siddanagouda Piddanagouda, R/o: Talakal. |
