Kumari Lama vs General Manager Icici Bank Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 21.07.2014, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short ''the State Commission'') in the case FA/81/2013, "The General Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Ms. Kumari Lama", vide which, the appeal filed against the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling in Consumer Complaint No. 20/D/12 was allowed and the said order of the District Forum, allowing the complaint, was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner are that an ATM Debit card (International) was issued to her by the respondent Bank in April 2009, which she had been using till 18.08.2011, when the said card got deactivated. On her request, the Bank issued her a new ATM Card, but the same was not activated. However, the complainant learnt that a third debit card had been issued by the Bank and from the statement of account, it was revealed that a sum of ?11,33,914/ - had been fraudulently withdrawn from her savings account. The complainant, alleging gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank, filed the consumer complaint in question with the following prayer: - "(i) Refund the said amount of ?11,33,914/ - fraudulent withdrawn from the account of the complainant together with interest @10% from 08.09.2011 till realisation.

(ii) Rs.10,00,000/ - (Rupees ten lakhs) as compensation for causing damages, mental agony and physical suffering due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

(iii) Rs.10,000/ - (Rupees ten thousand) as litigation cost and

(iv) Any other relief or reliefs to which the complainant is entitled."

THE said complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide their order dated 09.10.2012 and the Bank was directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,33,914/ - to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. with effect from 08.09.2011 till realisation and further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/ - and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/ -. However, in appeal filed before the State Commission against this order, the order passed by the District Forum was set aside on the ground that the District Forum did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the issue because as per section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the total amount demanded by the complainant including the compensation exceeded Rs.20 lakh. The State Commission directed vide this order that the complainant was at liberty to file complaint before the appropriate forum on the same cause of action. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments that the respondent Bank should have taken the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction at the stage of filing reply to the complaint or in proceedings before the State Commission. Since the respondent did not raise this issue earlier, the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law. The order passed by the State Commission should therefore be set aside. Learned counsel further stated that if the State Commission felt that the matter fell within their jurisdiction, they should have called for the record of the case from the District Forum and decided the complaint themselves, rather than dismissing the complaint.

IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law because the complainant had herself demanded a total sum of more than Rs.20 lakh in her complaint and hence, as per section 11(1) of the Act, the complaint should have been filed before the State Commission.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states as follows: - "11(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs."

A plain reading of the above section shows that if the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed, exceeds Rs.20 lakh, the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with such consumer complaint does not lie with the District Forum. As stated in the prayer clause of the complaint as reproduced above, it isvery clear that the complainant demanded a compensation of Rs.10 lakh for mental agony, etc. in addition to the refund of the amount of Rs.11,33,914/ - and Rs.10,000/ - as litigation cost. Evidently, the District Forum did not have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter and hence, the view taken by the State Commission in the impugned order is in accordance with law.

A perusal of the reply filed by the OP Bank before the District Forum indicates that in the preliminary objections, the OP have stated that the proceedings initiated by the complainant were without jurisdiction. However, even if the version of the petitioner is believed that the OP did not raise the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction before the District Forum in so many words, even then, it was the duty of the District Forum to examine the issue on their own whether they had the requisite jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is quite evident, therefore, that the order passed by the District Forum is perverse in the eyes of law, as it was passed without jurisdiction. The State Commission has rightly set aside that order and further given liberty to the petitioner/complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate forum on the same cause of action. The petitioner/complainant should have filed a fresh complaint before the State Commission in response to the impugned order, rather than filing a revision petition against the said order.

IN view of discussion above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, without any force and is ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission upheld with no order as to costs.