Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

           
                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') is directed against the order dated 26.042019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Betul (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.07/2014, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed holding that the District Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the appellant.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant is owner of a tractor, which he had purchased from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'dealer'). The subject vehicle was financed via opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 Kotak Mahindra Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'bank') and was insured with the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2- Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'insurance company'). The policy was for a period w.e.f. 30.08.2012 to 29.08.2013.  On 15.11.2012 the subject vehicle met with an accident regarding which the opposite parties were duly informed. It is alleged that despite fulfilment of all the formalities, the appellant was not given insurance claim. He therefore approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties and in order to seek relief.

3.                The opposite parties in their respective replies denied the allegations made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that though the subject vehicle met with an accident within the territory of District Commission, Betul but the cause of action cannot be held to have arisen in specified territory. Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. 

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had earlier filed a complaint before the District Commission, Chhindwara.  The said complaint was dismissed by the District Commission, Chhindwara on the same ground i.e. lack of territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the complaint filed by the appellant. In the order dated 18.09.2013, it was held by the District Commission, Chhindwara that no cause of action had arisen in the jurisdictional limits of District Commission, Chhindwara.  Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission, Betul but the District Commission, Betul vide impugned order also dismissed the complaint, citing the same ground. The appellant is left with no option since both the commissions below have dismissed the complaint, without hearing it on merits.  He further argued that it is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle met with an accident in Betul, therefore, the District Commission, Betul ought to have heard the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

7.                On going through the evidence available in the record, we find that the District Commission, Chhindwara vide its order dated 18.09.2013, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant, elaborating the fact that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Chhindwara.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the District Commission, Betul but there also his complaint was dismissed vide impugned order on the same ground.

8.                Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission and is relevant for deciding the issue involved in the matter, reads thus:

                                    (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
 

9.                We find that since the subject vehicle met with an accident within the territorial limits of District Commission, Betul, the District Commission, Betul ought to have heard the matter on merits rather than dismissing the complaint on the basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction.  The District Commission while passing the impugned order has given reference of Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC).  We find that in the referred judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the expression 'branch office' in the amended section 17(2) would mean 'branch office' where the cause of action has arisen." In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission has further commented that "No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.