National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sonic Surgical on 10 July, 2003
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, Member
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.3.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal commission Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby appellant/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 4,00,278/- with interest @ 10% per annum and cost, to the respondent/complainant.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are these. Respondent which has been dealing in the sale of various types of surgical items at Ambala Cantt, took a policy for Rs. 10 lakhs in respect of the stocks kept in shop and godown from the appellant and the policy was valid upto 5.8.1999. Jammu & Kashmir Bank - branch at Ambala Cantt had sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 10.5 lakhs to the respondent and the stocks kept in shop and godown was hypotheticated with the bank towards security. It is alleged that in the night intervening 13/14th.2.1999 around 10 p.m., fire broke in the godown of respondent and entire stocks lying there was destroyed. DD No. 11 dated 15.11.99 regarding incident was recorded by PS Ambala Cantt. On being intimated about the incident, he appellant appointed M/s. Duggal, Gupta and Associates, Surveyors and Loss Assessors as surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor after spot inspection submitted the report dated 25.5.1999. Respondent lodged claim for Rs. 12,24,517/- but the appellant offered amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which the respondent received under protest. alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed complaint against the appellant. In the written version by way of preliminary objection, the appellant alleged that State Commission Union Territory did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. On merits, taking of policy for Rs. 10 lakhs and its being valid upto 5.8.1999 was not denied. It was also not denied that appellant appointed a surveyor who submitted the report dated 25.5.1999. However, it was stated that surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,99,752/- and the respondent accepted amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards full and final settlement of its claim. Liability to pay the claimed amount was emphatically denied.
3. Main thrust of argument advanced by Shri Yogesh Malhotra for appellant was that no part of cause of action to file complaint had accrued within the jurisdiction of State Commission Union Territory Chandigarh and mere dealing with the respondent's claim by the regional office of appellant at Chandigarh would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the said Commission. Reliance was placed on the decision in Indian Airlines Corporation and Ors. v. Consumer Education and Research Society Ahmedabad and Anr. II(1991) CPJ 686. Ration of this decision is that a State Commission cannot exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim where no part of cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, merely because the corporation has branch office within the territory of that State Commission. Unamended Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) which deals with the jurisdiction of District Forum and is material, states-
(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 five lakhs.
(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, whether there are more than one, at the time of the institution of 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.
4. Section 17(1)(a) provides that a State Commission is to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, but does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. There is no separate corresponding provision similar to Sub-section (2) of Section 11 relating to State Commission. Under Section 18 of the Act, it is only Sections 12 to 14 that have been made applicable to the disposal of disputes by a State Commission. As held in Union Bank of India v. Seppo Rallyoy and Ors. III(1999) CPJ 10 (SC), we have to have purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act and read into Section 17 the same provision as contained in said Sub-section (2) of Section 11 subject to such modification as may be applicable to a State Commission. It is not in dispute that respondent's godown wherein the fire broke was situated in Ambala Cantt; policy obtained by the respondent was from a branch of the appellant at Ambala; claim was lodged by the respondent with branch office of the appellant at Ambala and amount of 2 lakhs by way of compensation was also accepted by respondent at Ambala. Impugned order would show that the objection about State Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh having no territorial jurisdiction, was rejected on the ground that regional office of appellant at Chandigarh had dealt with the claim made by respondent. In our view, mere dealing with the claim lodged by the respondent at some stage by the regional office of appellant at Chandigarh, would not furnish part of cause of action to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint by the State Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh which admittedly does not have territorial jurisdiction over Ambala. As noticed above, the entire cause of action within the meaning of aforementioned Clause (c) had accrued within the jurisdiction of Ambala over which State Commission Haryana alone had the territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order being not legally sustainable deserves to be set aside and complaint dismissed with liberty reserved to the respondent to file complaint on same cause of action before the State Commission Haryana.
5. Accordingly, while accepting appeal, the order dated 18.3.2002 is set aside and complaint dismissed with liberty reserved to the respondent to file complaint on same cause of action before the State Commission Haryana within three weeks of the receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.