State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamaljeet Singh vs Axis Bank Limited on 19 December, 2022
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Complaint case No. : 86 of 2022
Date of Institution : 07.12.2022
Date of Decision : 19.12.2022
1. Kamaljeet Singh, Age 44 years, Son of Sh. Gurmit Singh, Resident of
4741, M Block, Sector 68, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, 160062 Email:
[email protected]
2. Mrs. Karuna Sharma, Age 46 years, wife of Kamaljeet Singh, Resident of
4741, M Block, Sector 68, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, 160062 Email:
[email protected]
...... Complainants
Versus
1. Axis Bank Limited, "Trishul" -3rd Floor, Opp. Samarteswar Temple, near
law garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad having Branch office at S.C.0 343 &
344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
2. Rajesh LifeSpaces, a subsidiary of Rajesh Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
having office at 139, Seksria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road Fort,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400023
.....Opposite Parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Present:-
Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the complainants.
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the CPA 2019) seeking following reliefs against the opposite parties:-
"......a) To stay the order dated 19-11-2022 for Auction Sale Notice issued by respondent bank i.e. Annexure C-8 Or
b) The Auction process be put to hold by the respondent bank till final order is passed .
c) any other or such further Pass order/direction which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case......"2
2. For deciding the issue, as to whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint, it is apposite to reproduce Section 47 (4) of the CPA 2019 as under:-
".....(4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission 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, 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 in such case, the permission of the State 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. After going through the entire record of this case, this Commission on 13.12.2022 as well as on 15.12.2022, specifically posed a question to Sh.Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the complainants, to apprise as to how this Commission is vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. He, while referring to the contents of para no.22 of this complaint, answered that because Axis Bank Limited has also its corporate office at Sector 35-B, Chandigarh i.e. opposite party no.1 and all the correspondence has been done by the complainants at the said Chandigarh Corporate Office of the Axis Bank, therefore this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint. We have considered this contention and are of the considered view that the same does not merit acceptance, for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
4. From bare perusal of the notice dated 19.11.2022, Annexure C-8 (at page 227) it is evident that the Axis Bank is having its corporate and registered offices as under:-
Corporate Office: "Axis House", C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai -400025 Registered Office: "Trishul", 3rd Floor Opp. Samartheshwar Temple Law Garden, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad - 380006
5. Thus, the corporate office of the Axis Bank is located at Mumbai and not Chandigarh. Furthermore, it also evident from the record that at the time of obtaining loan from the Axis Bank (Goregaon West Mumbai), the complainants were residing at 170-A, 6A, Sapphire Heights, Lokhandwala, Kandivali East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400101, as this address is found mentioned on Loan Sanction Letter dated 28.01.2014, Annexure C-3;
3Statement of Accounts, Annexure C-4; and also notice dated 19.11.2022, Annexure C-8, having been issued by the Axis Bank. It is also coming out from the record that thereafter the complainants shifted themselves to Mohali, Punjab i.e. at the address given in the head-note of this complaint. There is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that any correspondence took place between the parties at Chandigarh. Although, Axis Bank is also having a branch office at Chandigarh, but there is nothing on record that any correspondence has taken place at the said branch office i.e. no cause of action has accrued to the complainant within the territory of Chandigarh. The mere fact that the Axis Bank also has its branch office at Chandigarh, where no cause of action has arisen to the complainant, does not ipso facto confer territorial jurisdiction to him to file this complaint before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Our this view is supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, decided on 20.10.2009 (Supreme Court of India) wherein it was held that mere presence of branch office of the opposite parties at Chandigarh, did not entitle the complainants to file the complaint before this Commission at Chandigarh. In this view of the matter, it is held that this Commission at Chandigarh is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainants for filing the same before the appropriate Commission/Court/Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same, as per law.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
8. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
19.12.2022 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER Rg