State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sham Lal Son Of Jagir Singh vs S.B.I. Cards & Payments Services Pvt. ... on 30 May, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.769 of 2007
Date of institution : 04.06.2007
Date of Decision : 30.05.2012
Sham Lal son of Jagir Singh, resident of House No.82, Bank Colony, Patiala.
........Appellant.
Versus
1. S.B.I. Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No.28, GPO New
Delhi.
2. Senior Manager, Operations, Registered Office SBI, Local Head
Office, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
3. SBI Cards, T.B. Hospital Road, Airtel Office, Patiala.
.......Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 27.11.2006
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Chanchal Singh, Advocate for Sh.L.M.Gulati, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.B.J.Singh, Advocate for Sh.D.P.Gupta, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER This is an appeal filed by Sham Lal (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 27.11.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of October,2004 the agent of the respondents approached the appellant in his office and insisted him to take SBI Credit Card to avail benefits First Appeal No.769 of 2007 2 given by the bank. The appellant trusted upon the agent and applied for the SBI credit card. The appellant had received SBI credit card No.4317575025192023 valid upto 10/2006 from the respondents in the first week of November, 2004. The appellant used the card many times and availed the benefits of the same. The appellant was regularly using the credit card and there was sufficient balance in his account. In the first week of August, 2005 an amount of Rs. 831.04 was due so the appellant on 20.08.2005 paid Rs.1000/- to the respondents through cheque No.387877 which was not encashed. The respondents told the appellant that his cheque was bounded as such, the appellant again issued cheque No.387878 which was again bounced. The bill of September, 2005 came which was amounting to Rs.710/- so in the same way the appellant again issued cheque on 20.09.2005 of Rs.710/- which was again returned as unpaid. The cheques were illegally and wrongly bounced by the respondents when the sufficient amount was available in his account. The dues were paid by the appellant vide receipt No. 4155850 and cheque No. 387881. The appellant so many times requested the respondents for the cancellation of his credit card and to return his unpaid cheques but all in vain. On insisting upon the appellant his credit card was cancelled but the cheques were not returned by the respondents to the appellant till the filing of the appeal. The appellant was harassed by the respondents due to gross negligence on their part as the sufficient balance was available in his account and the cheques were returned unpaid without any rhyme or reason. Complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to return his two cheques bearing an amount of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 710/- as well as Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.769 of 2007 3
3. Upon notice, the respondents replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, the appellant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands, no cause of action arose to the appellant to file the complaint, complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, as such, only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant availed a credit card facility, cheque bearing No. 387877 of Rs. 1000/- paid by the appellant was presented for payment on 12.11.2005 but the same was dis-honoured. It was also admitted that payment of Rs. 710/- was also received from the appellant vide cheque No. 387879 as well as receipt of payment of Rs. 2664/- vide cheque No. 387881 was also not denied. It was denied that any amount was deducted twice from the account of the appellant.
4. Reply to paras No. 10 to 23 do not relate to the complaint, there are only 13 paras in the complaint but the official of the respondents signed the reply to the complaint without going through the contents of the same, which is not expected from a Bank/Company Officer, who is supposed to sign the documents very carefully as his duty relates to financial matters.
5. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction.
7. Hence, the appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. First Appeal No.769 of 2007 4
9. The appellant has filed the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the District Forum, Patiala has no territorial jurisdiction as no office of the respondent was situated at Patiala. Even no objection was raised by the respondents in their reply that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
10. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum only on the point of territorial jurisdiction.
11. We have perused the written reply filed by the respondents but nowhere in the same it is pleaded that the respondents have no Branch Office at Patiala as pleaded by opposite party No. 3 in the complaint. It is also not denied by the respondents that the credit card was not delivered at Patiala or the cheques were not collected from the appellant at Patiala as such, the findings of the District Forum that the District Forum, Patiala has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint is not correct and the order of the District Forum is set-aside as part of cause of action has arisen at District Forum, Patiala. As such, the appeal of the appellant is accepted.
12. The case is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the complaint on merits after serving the notice upon the parties and affording one opportunity each to the appellant and respondents to produce evidence if they so desire.
13. The Registry is directed to send the record of the District Forum immediately.
14. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Patiala on 5.7.2012 for further proceedings. The District Forum First Appeal No.769 of 2007 5 shall decide the complaint within three months from the receipt of the same as the matter involved in the complaint is very old.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.05.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
May 30, 2012 (Piare Lal Garg)
As Lb/- Member