WEBB SHIRLEY vs CITI BANK CARD CENTRE

IN this complaint, the complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 2 lacs from the opposite party for the deficiency in service and consequent loss and injury sustained by her. Defendant is a Bank. The complainant held a "Diner''s Club Credit Card" of the opposite party for getting certain credit services.

THE complainant averred that in the month of December 1991 at "Holiday Inn" she presented a credit card. But the said "Holiday Inn" hotel refused to accept the card. By this, the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience and embarrassment. About 15 days thereafter, at Madras Airport, while she was enroute to Australia, when she presented the said credit card for payment to cover the extra luggage charges, the Airport Authorities refused to accept the said card, consequently, the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience and embarrassment. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for this deficiency in service and loss and injury sustained by her.

The opposite party filed its statement of objections and averred that the complainant was in default for having not made payment promptly and so the credit card held by the complainant was listed in "hot card bulletin" and so the credit card was not accepted by "Holiday Inn" and the Airport authorities at Madras. This was due to the fault and negligence on the part of the complainant herself.

THE opposite party further averred that this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. We have heard the parties only on the point of territorial jurisdiction and we are recording the finding only on this aspect of the matter.

THE complainant has given the address of the opposite party in the complaint, as under : "Citi Bank Card Centre P.O. Box 4830 Anna Round Post Office Madras 600 002 by its Vice President, Mr. Ashok Dutt"

THE complainant has not averred in the complaint that the opposite party either resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Two incidents that took place, as averred in the complaint, are one at Delhi, that is at "Holiday Inn" hotel at Delhi and another at the Airport, Madras. Therefore, it is clear, as per the averments contained in the complaint, the cause of action, for filing the complaint, either wholly or in part, did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, that is, within the State of Karnataka.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant, while referring to a copy of the letter, as per Ex.C1, submitted that the opposite party has given address at Bangalore, so the opposite party should be deemed to be carrying on business in Bangalore. Ex. C-1 is a copy of the letter written by the opposite party to the complainant, wherein at the bottom of the said Jetter it has been referred as under : "For any further Information call : Bombay : 202 223; Delhi 371 2277; Calcutta : 29 2002; Madras : 47 3344 or Travel House at Bangalore : 26 8090 Hyderabad : 82 5253." It shows that for getting any further information, a telephone number at Bangalore has been given. But by this fact itself it cannot be said that the opposite party either voluntarily resides or carries on business or works for gain at Bangalore. Moreover, there is absolutely no averments made in the complaint to show that the cause of action, eidier wholly or in part did arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

IN the absence of such material, we are constrained to hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. ORDER IN the result, therefore, this complaint is rejected . Parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint rejected.