CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very important question which will affect the interest of the consumers has arisen before us as to whether a consumer can file a petition of complaint against a Corporation which is carrying on its business in the local limits of Gujarat but whose sole or principal office is situated outside the State limits coupled with the fact that cause of action has not arisen within the territory of State of Gujarat. Had this question arisen before the Civil Court, the answer would have been simple taking recourse to explanation to Sec.20 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code') which provides; "a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or" one cannot dispute that in view of Clause (a) of Sec.20, a suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for again; or (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) the cause of action, wholly or partly arisen.

(2.) Difficulty arises for the opposite party, a Bank, whose principal office is located at Bangalore/madras and which is admittedly carrying on its business at Ahmedabad through its branch office, on account of absence of explanation in Sec.11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consumer Act' ). In order to appreciate the contentions and submissions of both the parties, some short facts are necessary to be reproduced, complainant No.1 is a registered consumer association and complaint no.2 is a consumer who opened Letters of Credit with opposite party No.2 through its Madurai Branch. The complainant found, while dealing with the letters of credit that the Bank had shown negligence and utter disregard to the interest of the complainant as a result of which complainant no.2 had suffered heavy damages on various counts as stated in paragraphs 22 and 24 of the complainant which includes amount of compensation, refund, interest and other liabilities.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opponent-Bank has raised the preliminary issue and submitted; (i) that the consumer is not residing in Gujarat, (ii) that the principal office of the opponent Bank is situated outside Gujarat, at Bangalore, (iii) that no cause of action has arisen wholly or partly within the territory of Gujarat and, therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction within the meaning of Sec.11 (2) of the Consumer Act.