Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.

THE complainant holds an Account No. 1182/B-15 at the Residency Road Branch of Jammu and Kashmir Bank at Srinagar. On 10.2.92 the complainant requested that the sum of Rs. 1,86,34,976 be transferred from their account at Srinagar Branch to the Jammu Branch by means of a telex transfer. However, it has been alleged that the amount in question was transferred after a lapse of 102 days on 22.5.92 and that there was deficiency on the part of the branches at Srinagar and Jammu. THE complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 11,71,706/- as interest alleging that this was the amount @ 22 which should be admissible for the period in question. As regards territorial jurisdiction, reliance has been placed on Section 11(2)(b) as amended on 18.6.93 wherein it was provided that if any of the opposite parties carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, shall have the jurisdiction.

IN this case from the very beginning there had been an objection of territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the cause of action arose at Jammu and not at Chandigarh. The plea that addition of the word ''Branch Office'' in Section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 18.6.93 confers jurisdiction on this Commission merely because Jammu and Kashmir Bank has a branch at Chandigarh, requires further consideration. On behalf of the respondent it has been brought to our notice that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 extends to the whole of INdia except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus it is doubtful that the jurisdiction of this Commission can be extended in respect of dispute which arose in Jammu. Besides this it has been brought to our notice that there is the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 bearing Act No. XVI of 1987 which is applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The plea that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted and enforced in INdia should be stretched widely to cover the complaint against Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., because merely it is maintaining one of its branches at Chandigarh, does not appear to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Thus the conclusion is that since there is a separate Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, and the entire transaction and dispute took place at Srinagar and Jammu, this Commission at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction. The complaint is hereby returned for such action as the complainant deems proper. Announced. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Complaint returned.