RAJUL K.PATEL vs PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN EXPRESS (TRS) AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD.

BY way of this complaint, the complainant, an Advocate has prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 over and above the value of service and late payment charges against the opponents, six in number. The opponent American Express Bank Limited represented by 1st five opponents has resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objection with regard to bar of territorial jurisdiction in this Commission. The complainant has filed reply to that application moved by the opponent Bank and the opponent Bank has filed affidavit in rejoinder along with decisions in support of its contention with regard to territorial jurisdiction. For the purpose of deciding this short question, it would be appropriate to make a brief note of allegations of facts made in this complaint.

THE complainant is having a credit card bearing No. 3769 101578 52001 from American Express Bank Limited. Admittedly, the Bank has its head office/registered office at New Delhi and admittedly has no branch office in the city of Ahmedabad or at any place in the State of Gujarat. THE complainant was using the Amex card regularly without any problem and accordingly he had an occasion to book air tickets with opponent No. 6 Green Channel Travel Services, Ahmedabad (India), Representative of American Express Travel Related Services on 10.5.1999 for an amount of Rs. 18,733 using the Amex card held by the complainant. According to the complainant, American Express Travel Related Services is equivalent to Amex Bank. THE complainant received monthly statement of account dated 25.5.1999 showing outstanding amount of Rs. 20,833 comprising the aforesaid air ticket charges and annual fee in the sum of Rs. 2,100. He, therefore, drew a cheque dated 3.6.1999 for an amount of Rs. 18,733 coupled with annual fee of Rs. 2,100 on his Bank namely Ahmedabad Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited, Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad for Rs. 20,875 including Rs. 42 towards Bank charges favouring American Express Bank Limited towards payment of the aforesaid outstanding dues stated in the statement of account dated 25.5.1999. THE Bank Draft as issued as per the arrangement with HDFC Bank the Ahmedabad Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited had in favour of American Express Bank Card No. 3769 101578 52001 payable at New Delhi. THE demand draft was forwarded through opponent No. 6 stated to be the representative of the opponent Bank. It is the stand of the complainant that in spite of such payment, the opponent did not credit that amount in the complainant''s aforesaid account and went on showing outstanding balance resulting into a long drawn battle of correspondence between the complainant and the opponent Bank. We need not refer to such correspondence for the simple reason that for the present it is not necessary to adjudicate the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Bank. Needless to say that the complaint filed against opponent No. 6 is apparently misconceived and there is no cause of action against opponent No. 6 either in its present capacity or in the capacity of it being alleged representative of opponent Bank. It would, therefore, clearly appear that the complaint has been filed against opponent Bank stationed at New Delhi. The opponent Bank has asserted that it is a Banking Company having its principal office at New Delhi and Mumbai and according to its submission, a suit or complaint could be instituted where the company has its registered/principal office and only such Court within whose local limit the Bank is having its registered or principal office. The opponent Bank has also referred to Clause 40 of the terms and conditions of the credit card issued to the complainant and such condition would read, "These terms and conditions are governed by laws in India. All credit card members submit themselves to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in the State of New Delhi". Under such circumstances, the opponent Bank has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Limited, reported in AIR 1971 SC P. 740, and in the case of Beacon Pharmaceuticals v. Dunichand Khosla and Others, reported in AIR 1973 Punjab p 60, as also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, reported II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC P. 255. The complainant has filed reply Exh. 13 inter alia stating therein that the whole cause of action of complaint has arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Commission inasmuch as the complainant has booked air tickets through opponent No. 6 having its office at Ahmedabad and inasmuch as the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on Court which does not at all possess any jurisdiction to entertain a suit or a complaint.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. In our considered opinion, the facts alleged by the complainant would clearly show that the cause of action pertains to payment made by the complainant in his account and under the credit and in question and such payment is stated to have been made by demand draft payable at New Delhi. The account is admittedly maintained at New Delhi and the statement of account is also issued by the opponent from its Principal Office situated at New Delhi. Thus, the entire cause of action in substance appears to have arisen within the territory of Delhi. The cause of action does not relate to the purchase of ticket. It is not the case of the complainant that the ticket was purchased and was not issued or was defective in nature or that the complainant suffered any deficiency with regard to journey he had undertaken as per the ticket issued by opponent No. 6. It would, therefore, clearly appear that no part of cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial limit of jurisdiction of this Commission. Assuming that some part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, the clause of agreement referred to herein above clearly takes away the remedy of the complainant before any Forum or Commission in the State of Gujarat. The clause indicates that the remedy could be taken in any Court or Forum or Commission within the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts or Forum or Commission. The law in that respect is clearly settled as per the decisions referred to on behalf of the opponent Bank and noted hereinabove.

THIS Commission is bound by the decisions of the Apex Court which have been referred to hereinabove. It is not that the opponent Bank seeks to vest jurisdiction in a Court or Forum or a Commission which does not at all have any jurisdiction. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that the opponent Bank has its principal office/registered office at New Delhi and it operates the accounts of the consumers holding credit cards from that office. The statement of account in question has also been issued from that office. Bearing in mind such facts and circumstances of the case, we have no alternative except to hold that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In that view of the matter, we uphold the preliminary objection and pass following order: ORDER THIS complaint is returned to the complainant for the same being presented before the appropriate Forum/Court. The complaint as it stands before this Commission will stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Complaint disposed of.