NIRMAL RAJ KUMAR MRS vs HDFC BANK LIMITED

VIDE impugned order dated 2. 6. 2005, the complaint of the appellants, seeking compensation on account of having cleared cheques purportedly bearing forged signatures of the complainant, was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that admittedly the complainant is having an account with the Gurgaon Branch of the O. P. Bank and the cheques were presented at that Bank. However, at the same time four withdrawals were made from the ATM Kiosk of the O. P. Bank at Greater Kailash-I and Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. As per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum has territorial jurisdiction where whole or part of the cause of action arises. However, Section 11 also provides that where there are more than one O. P. , place where any of the actually resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum.

Here, the OP Bank has Head Office in Delhi and Branch Offices in Greater Kailash, Defence Colony and different parts and, therefore, at any of the places, say at Gurgaon or Delhi, the complainant has a right to file the complaint. It is not the case that two different Banks were involved and joined as co-respondents.

IN the foregoing facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum for trial. The parties shall appear before the District Forum for the said purpose on 7. 3. 2007. A copy of order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. Appeal allowed.