VIJAY BANK vs K.V.SINGH

VIJAY Bank is the appellant and challenge is to the order of District Forum, Patiala dated September 25, 1996. A direction was given to the Bank to pay the amount of Rs. 2,03,747.70 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. November 18, 1988 till payment and compensation and costs in lump sum Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant, Mr. K.V. Singh.

THE complainant K.V. Singh had VCC Account No. 4 of 1984 in which he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,33,500/- which was to mature on January 5, 1990. THE amount was deposited with Vijay Bank, Mahim, Bombay. Since the payment was not made in spite of reminders, District Forum, Patiala was approached where Vijay Bank was having a branch office at Dharampura Bazar, Patiala. In the version submitted by the Bank, it was stated that the Bank had issued Pay order dated November 18, 1988 for Rs. 2,03,747 /- which included interest. THE amount was credited to Fixed Deposit Account of K.V. Singh with Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited, Andheri (West). THE aforesaid transaction was introduced by one Sh. Haren Choksey. Thus, it was asserted that the amount on maturity had already been paid to the complainant. On the evidence produced by the parties on affidavits and documents, the Impugned Order was passed. At the outset, it may be stated that Counsel for the Vijay Bank has stated that the amount has been withdrawn from the Bombay Marcantile Co-operative Bank Limited, Andheri Branch and is to be paid to the complainant. Thus, it is not considered necessary to deal with the plea of the Bank as to whether any fraud was played on the officials by the Bank in getting the amount withdrawn and for crediting the same in the Bombay Marcantile Co-operative Bank Limited, Andheri Branch in the account of Mr. K.V. Singh. The very fact that the amount had been withdrawn by Vijay Bank concludes that it was wrongly credited in the account of one K.V. Singh of Bombay Marcantile Co-operative Bank Limited and now the money is available for being paid to the account holder K.V. Singh, the complainant. For all this period, complainant was deprived of the use of this money and thus complainant suffered monetary loss as well as inconvenience and harassment on account of negligent act on the part of the Bank.

Since the complainant did not produce any specific evidence of loss suffered, just compensation is required to be paid to him and in the matter of money value, 18% p.a. interest thereon is considered just compensation. The order of the District Forum to that extent is correct.

MR. Ashok Jagga, Advocate for the Bank has argued that the District Forum, Patiala could not have jurisdiction in the matter as no cause of action with respect to the deposit or withdrawal of the amount therefrom the account of complainant which was maintained at Bombay had accrued within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Patiala. This argument though fancy cannot be accepted. The principals governing jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not to be applied to the case in hand for which special provision has been made under Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act. The same reads as under : "11 .(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction : (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain : Provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office or) personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises".

If the case falls under any of Clauses (a), (b) or (c) as reproduced above, the District Forum of particular place will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The clauses are not overlapping but are independent. In the case of a matter covered by either Clause (a) or (b), the cause of action or part thereof would be irrelevant consideration for determining the question of jurisdiction of Forum to entertain the complaint likewise if the cause of action or part thereof has accrued at a particular place, it would be immaterial whether the opposite party was having head office or branch office at that place or not. This position has been clarified in a number of cases settled by this Commission. There is no similar provision in the Code of Civil Procedure providing territorial jurisdiction to a Court where branch office of the defendant may be situated. It is a special provision under Consumer Protection Act to give benefit to the consumers to settle a dispute where either head office of the opposite party or branch office is situated where the opposite party is carrying on business. Since Vijay Bank is having a branch office at Patiala, though no cause of action had accrued at Patiala, District Forum would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

MR. Ashok Jagga, Advocate for the Vijay Bank has argued that the District Forum was not justified in granting double compensation, one in the form of 18% p.a. interest and other a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost. There is merit in this contention. As already observed, compensation by way of 18% interest is awarded to cover the loss suffered which also includes for inconvenience or harassment caused. Thus, separate compensation on that account is not required to be paid but it may be observed that the same ratio cannot be applied in the case of allowing cost of litigation. Such costs are awarded under Clause (i) of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act where compensation is allowed under Clause (d) of Section 14(1). For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The appellant Bank is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,03,747.70 with 18% p.a. interest thereon w.e.f. November 18,1988 till payment. The Bank would pay costs before the District Forum to the complainant which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. The directions to be complied within one month of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal partly allowed.