BANK OF BARODA, RAJKOT MAIN BRANCH vs KAITHADI ABRAHAM SAMUEL

THE appellant, the original opposite party No. 3, Bank of Baroda, has preferred the appeal against the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagadh, directing to pay interest @ 18% on the draft amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the date of application till realisation and cost Rs. 500/-holding that the draft sent by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 along with the application for 300 equity shares or in the alternative 50 P.C.Ds. by Tata Elxsi (India) Ltd. should have been sent by the appellant Bank of Baroda to the Canara Bank as the draft was infavour of the said bank and that it could have been returned in time to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a complaint contending that they had applied for 300 equity shares or in the alternative 50 PCDs of Tata Elxsi (India) Ltd. which had floated the public issue and had sent the application alongwith the draft of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of Canara Bank to the appellant-Bank of Baroda Main Branch, Rajkot. But the application was not fowarded to Tata Elxsi (India) Limited and, therefore, they are entitled to the amount of Rs. 3,000/- for the refund of application amount with 18% interest and cost of Rs. 500/-. THE complaint was filed against Tata Elxsi (India) Limited with Tata Consultancy Service, Bank of Baroda and Syndicate Bank, Rajkot. After the replies were filed, it transpired that Bank of Baroda had not sent the application to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as the application was rejected as the draft was not favouring Bank of Baroda and, therefore, relief is granted only against the appellant. Ms. Ranjni Verma, learned Advocate for the appellant asserted two contentions viz. that the District Forum, Junagadh has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the cause of action had taken place at Rajkot and that on facts Bank of Baroda was not responsible as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had not sent the draft favouring that Bank. Both the contentions should be accepted. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the written submissions which have been considered by us.

The public issue of Tata Elxsi (India) Limited was floated and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted the application for 300 shares or 50 PCDs. and alongwith the application submitted the demand draft drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rajkot. The application alongwith the draft was submitted to the Bank of Baroda, Rajkot. The specific instruction in the application form is that the cheque must be made payable to any of the bankers to the issue and marked "Account TEIL Public Issue" i.e. American Express Bank Limited-A/c. TEIL Public Issue". Admittedly, the application form was submitted to Bank of Baroda but the draft was not favouring Bank of Baroda. Bank of Baroda, therefore, could not have collected the amount due and only Canara Bank could have collected it. This mistake was committed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Complainants) and for their mistake the appellant could not be penalised. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 violated the specific instructions issued in the form and, therefore the application was rightly rejected. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therefore cannot make any grievance and cannot claim any compensation or even compensation by way of interest for late returning from the appellant.

THE reason by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that the draft should have been sent to Canara Bank by the Bank of Baroda can not be accepted as it was not obligatory upon Bank of Baroda to sent the application form alongwith the draft to the Canara Bank. THEy should have presented the application form alongwith the draft to the Canara Bank which was also the collecting bank for the public issue. The appellant had returned the draft to the respondent No. 1 through courier service-Maruti travel and cargo, Junagadh but the envelop was returned with the endorsement that no such person was available in the District Court. The respondent No. 1 Shri Kaithady Abraham Samuel is serving at District Court, Junagadh. The District Forum has raised doubt about the endorsement stating that there were some erasures but from the xerox copy produced it is clear that the envelop was properly addressed to the respondent No. 1. It appears that the courier service could not serve the envelop to the respondent No. 1 but for that the appellant should not held responsible.

THE application was submitted at Rajkot and the branch office of the appellant is situated at Rajkot and the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot, under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint should be filed within the jurisdiction of the Forum where the opposite party is residing or carrying on the business or where the cause of action has arisen. THE District Forum Junagadh had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. THE result is that the appeal should be allowed and the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagadh should be set aside. ORDER THE appeal is allowed. THE order by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Junagadh is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs of the complaint and appeal. Appeal allowed.