State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohd Rafat Khan vs State Bank Of India on 27 January, 2026
FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 12.05.2023
Date of Hearing: 01.12.2025
Date of Decision: 27.01.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. - 197/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
MOHD. RAFAT KHAN,
S/O LATE M. ZAHEER KHAN,
R/O A-64 SF ASHOKC ENCLAVE-II,
SECTOR 37, FARIDABAD-121003 (HR).
(Through: Appellant in person)
...Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER/ HEAD OFFICE,
11, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI-110003.
ALSO AT:
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER/ HEAD OFFICE,
HUDA MARKET SECTOR-3,
FARIDABAD-121004.
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 10
FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Appellant in person.
None for the Respondent.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"The complainant has filed the present complaint for arrangement letter dated 18.05.2011 to be declared as null and void, OP be directed to fore-close the loan account dated 08.02.2013 and issue an NOC to remove hypothecation. It is also prayed that a sum of Rs.70,000/- be provided for physical, mental and social agony and financial losses and inconvenience caused to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation cost.
The complainant has stated that he availed car loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase a Toyota Etios from the State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as OP). The loan was repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.10.146/ each which was calculated at 10% interest ie. below BPLR dated 18.05.2011 on redefining balance. Copy of the agreement dated 18.05.2011 is attached as Annexure-B. The OP then made payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to Espirit Toyota. The Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- to the OP on 18.5.2011 on account of service charges and handed 20 post dated cheques payable at Punjab National Bank, BCP, New Delhi and 21 State Bank of Patiala payable at OP-2. A total of Rs.40,584/ was paid by the complainant vide 40 EMIs of Rs.10,416/- Copy of the statement of account is attached as Annexure-D. It is the case of the complainant that he noticed the irregularity in the rate of interest being charged on 05.02.2013 and in the account statement and then wrote an e-mail to the OP stating that an interest of 12% was being charged on account of car loan amount whereas according to the arrangement letter dated 18.5.2011, the interest on the loan would be 10% i.e. 4:25% below BPLR. It is further DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 stated that the OP assured the complainant vide e-mail dated 25.3.2013 that "your loan account No. 65116150022 with our Branch is to be payable in 48 instalments of Rs. 10,146/- each as per Bank's agreement with you". The copy of the e-mail is attached as Annexure-G. The complainant kept paying EMIs as per due date. But to utter shock when he decided to fore- close the loan account on 25.7.2014 the balance demanded and shown in the account statement was Rs.97,450/- which was wrong as per the agreement and the complainant had to pay the balance amount of Rs.87,164/- which meant that the OP was charging interest @12.5% which is neither as per agreement executed dated 18.05.2011 nor agreement dated 25.03.2013 and neither in accordance with guidelines issued by RBI dated 09.04.2010. The complainant sent a legal notice on 28.7.2014 calling upon the OPs to provide a suitable clarification which was replied by the OP vide their letter dated 14.08.2014. It is the case of the complainant that the agreement dated 18.05.2011 is a generic document with many pre-printed ambiguous conditions and is against public policy and in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, the OP has taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is groundless, misconceived and unsustainable in law. It is stated that it is not a consumer dispute and it is also stated that the Commission has not the requisite jurisdiction. It is also stated that the complainant had taken loan from the State Bank of Patiala, situated at HUDA Market, Sector-3, Faridabad-121004 and all the documents were signed by both the parties at Faridabad. Therefore, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is also stated that the present dispute is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 19.05.2022, whereby it held as under:
"Before this Commission would try the case on merits, it is important to understand whether this DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 Commission has the jurisdiction to try the present case and the Commission is of the view that we do not have the jurisdiction to try the case.
The territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is invoked solely on the ground that the registered office of the OP is situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Section 34 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides that a complaint may be instituted in any of the District Commission, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, wherein clauses (a) to (d) are attracted. Section 34 has been reproduced herein below
34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or C)the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, or
d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain (3)The District Commission shall ordinarily friction in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at much other place in the district, as the State Government may, in DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.
Admittedly, in the facts of this case, no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, neither of the opposite parties ordinarily resides or has a branch office or personally works for gain or complainant resides or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical us National Insurance Company Limited (2010) 2 SCC 135 while adjudicating section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 categorically held that State Commission where the "branch office of OP is situated would have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, only if cause of action had also arisen wherein branch office is situated. Thus, mere existence of branch office would not confer jurisdiction.
Relying on Sonic Surgical us National Insurance Company Limited the Hon'ble NCDRC in Kaizad Marzban Baraiya vs National Insurance Ltd RP No. 2710/2015 held that:
Therefore, the place of registered office of respondent no.2 by itself shall not confer jurisdiction on the Consumer Forum which otherwise do not have the territorial jurisdiction.
However, a division bench of the Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of Pratap Chandra Sinha vs Kindle Developers Private Limited 2017 (3) CPR 287 distinguished the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical by holding the same is applicable only to branch office and not registered office of the OP. The Hon'ble NCDRC in Pratap Chandra Sinha allowed the complaint to be entertained at a place where the registered office of OP was situated.
Another Division Bench of the NCDRC, however, in a subsequent judgment in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh vs Kailash Healthcare Hospital 2019 (3) CPR 627 took a contradictory view by rejecting the contention that the registered office of the OP would confer territorial jurisdiction to Delhi State Commission. In this matter no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and the neither the doctor against whom the medical negligence was pleaded, worked for gain in territorial jurisdiction of Delhi State Commission. The DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 cause of action took place at Noida and the doctor also worked in Noida, hence the Hon'ble NCDRC held that State Commission situated at Lucknow would have jurisdiction. Incidentally, one of the members of bench was common in both the judgments.
In another matter, a single Judge of NCDRC in the matter of BMW India Private Limited us Mukul Aggarwal 1 (2020) C PJ103(NC) allowed a complaint to be entertained in Delhi for the reason that the registered office of one of the OP was situated in Delhi. This judgment has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal in SLP no. 10319/2020 vide order dated 21.09.2020.
It is trite that in case of conflicting judgments of the same bench strength, the subordinate Courts have discretion to choose which of the two conflicting judgments to be followed. We follow the Hon'ble NCDRC's judgement in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh as it is in line with the judgment of Hon'ble, Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical and also it is the latter judgment.
Since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, neither complainant nor OP resides or works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission. We are of the considered view that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence direct the same to be returned to be presented in court of competent jurisdiction.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in interpreting Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which permits the Appellant to file the consumer complaint before said commission where the branch office of the Respondent situates. The Appellant further submitted that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint of the DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 Appellant/Complainant on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand has failed to file the reply to the present Appeal despite multiple opportunities, therefore, the right of the Respondent to file the reply to the present Appeal was closed vide order dated 08.04.2025 by this Commission.
5. The written arguments have been filed by the Appellant wherein he has reiterated the submissions made in the present Appeal and the same has been considered during the stage of final arguments by this Commission. On the other hand, the Respondent has failed to file the written submissions despite given multiple opportunities.
6. We have perused the material available on record including the written arguments filed by the Appellant.
7. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Appellant before it.
8. Since, the complaint before the District Commission has been filed in the year 2014, therefore, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will apply to the present Appeal. In order to properly appreciate the contention of counsel for the Appellant it would be useful to have a look on Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of District Commission. The relevant section is reproduced as under:
"Section 11- Jurisdiction of the District Forum- (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
9. The stand of the Appellant is that his complaint case no. 322/2014 is covered under Section 11 (2) of the Act as the Zonal Office of the Respondent falls within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the concerned District Commission. On the other hand, stand of the Respondent before the District Commission is that the concerned Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as neither any part of cause of action had arisen nor the Appellant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission.
10. Having discussed the statutory position, we find that in the present case, the Appellant got sanctioned a loan amounting Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Respondent bank branch situated at Faridabad and the said loan was to be repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs. 10,146/- each. However, during the course of repayment, the Appellant noticed some irregularity in the rate of interest charged by the Respondent bank which he disputed with the bank, but the Respondent bank failed to resolve the issue, aggrieved from which, the Appellant has filed the consumer complaint no. 322 of 2014 before the District Commission-X, New Delhi.
11. On perusal of the record, we find that the Loan in question was availed from the Branch of the Respondent Bank situated at HUDA Market Sector - 3, Faridabad, Haryana - 121004. Additionally, all the DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026 communications were done by the Appellant with the branch situated in Faridabad, Haryana. Moreover, the Appellant does not reside within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the concerned District Commission.
12. Therefore, from the aforesaid points, it is clear that neither part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission-X, (South District), New Delhi. Additionally, in view of the established legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in:
A. Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd IV (2009) CPJ 40; and B. New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gopal Gupta and Anr. in First Appeal No.428/2008 decided on 03.09.2013;
it is to be noted that merely because the Respondent has a branch office within the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission does not automatically empower the District Commission to adjudicate upon the present matter. Furthermore, the cause of action must arise within the jurisdiction of the District Commission in order for it to adjudicate the consumer complaint. Since, in the present case, no part of cause of action has arisen within the Territorial Jurisdiction of District Commission. Therefore, in our considered view, the District Commission was right in dismissing the Consumer Complaint no. 322/2014 for the want of Territorial Jurisdiction.
13. More so, we find no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, (South District), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi - 110016. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 10 FA/197/2023 MOHD. RAFAT KHAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA D.O.D.: 27.01.2026
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties. A copy of this order be also sent to the concerned District Commission.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment (JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
27.01.2026 LR-AJ DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 10