AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE two appeals arise out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras, dated 30.7.93 in O.P. No. 1430/92. The 1st Opposite Party is the Appellant in A.P. No. 527/93, while the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 & 3 are the Appellants in A.P. No. 550/93.
THE Complainant had a Savings Bank Account with the 3rd Opposite Party Co-operative Central Bank in Kadambur in Kovilpatti taluk, Chidambaranar district. It is his case that he deposited a cheque for Rs. 52,000/- for encashment and when he, subsequently, applied for the money he was told that there was a balance of Rs. 10/- only and a sum of Rs. 51,922/- has been withdrawn by one Ramakrishnan, on the basis of the cheque issued by the Complainant. Denying that he issued any such cheque, the Complainant has come forward with this claim. The Opposite Parties inter alia contended that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
The District Forum did not deal with this question of jurisdiction and has passed an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 51,992/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. and costs of Rs. 300/-.
WE do not want to go into the merits at this stage, because of the jurisdictional point raised by the Appellants. The cause of the action has wholly arise in this case in Kadambur in Kovilpatti taluk of Chidambaranar district and the Forum that is competent to entertain the claim is District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin. The Complainant has impleaded the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the 1st Opposite Party is the Special Officer, Tamilnadu State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Madras, the 2nd Opposite Party is the Special Officer, Tirunelveli Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli and the 3rd Opposite Party is the Branch Manager, Kadambur Branch, where the transaction has taken place. Under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part arises or where the Opposite Party resides or carried on business. The Opposite Parties here are in Madras, Tirunelveli and Kadambar. Where there are more than one Opposite Party and one of them resides within the jurisdiction of this Forum, the permission of the District Forum must be obtained for filing the complaint before that District Forum or the other Opposite Parties must acquiesce any such institution. We find that no any such permission has been obtained from the District Forum. The Opposite Parties 2 & 3 have not also acquiesced in this institution and they have raised the question of jurisdiction in this counter. Unfortunately, the District Forum has not gone to this jurisdiction matter. In the result, we find that the Madras District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The order passed by the District Forum, Madras is not valid in law.
IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum, Madras is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Madras to be returned to the Complainant for presentation to the proper District Forum. Appeal allowed.