This appeal against the order no. 3 dated 27/7/2018 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in connection with CC no. 74/S/2018. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Rachit Trexim Private Limited had imported a consignment of Daberbata from Bankok , Thailand.  The Consignment was covered under an insurance policy issued by the respondent no. 1 AXA insurance company of Bankok, covering risk case including loading and unloading from warehouse to final warehouse. The consignment was found in damaged condition while it was unloaded in the final warehouse of the complainant/appellant at his Siliguri warehouse. Then it was intimated to the insurance authority and the respondent no. 3 Wilson Surveyor had sent a surveyor team to assess the damage of the consignment and thereafter submitted report before the insurance company which was agreed to pay the compensation for damage articles and fixed an amount which was assessed by the insurance company and surveyor was not aggreable to the complainant/appellant and for that reason the proprietor of complainant/appellant company lodged a consumer complaint before Ld. Forum. The Ld. Forum at the time of admission of the consumer complaint came to a conclusion that none among the respondents have any business or residence within the territorial jurisdiction of DCDRF, Siliguri and for that reason the case was not admitted there. Being aggrieved with this order, this appeal follows on the ground  that the Ld. Forum has misinterpreted the provisions of law regarding the places for filing of consumer complainants and the Ld. Forum has committed  a mistake regarding the actual jurisdiction of the Forum  and had misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case.

                The  appeal was admitted on merit and the respondents were asked to appear to contest the appeal and all the respondents that is respondent no. 1 to 4, has received the notice of appeal in due course of time. Respondent no. 4 did not secure the appearance before the commission. Respondents no. 1 to 3 has contested the appeal by appointing Ld. Advocate Sri Sudipta Majumbar who conducted the case on their behalf. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

Decision with reasons.

After going through the memo of appeal and the consumer complainant very carefully, we find that the appellant company is situated within the jurisdiction of Siliguri PS but none of the respondents have any business or present resident or any temporary occupation within the jurisdiction of Siliguri Forum.

In that perspective, Ld. Forum has opined that the Siliguri Forum lacks the jurisdiction to hear this Consumer Complaint. On the other hand the complainant/appellant’s final warehouse is situated within the jurisdiction of Siliguri PS where the consignment was unloaded and the surveyor came to the warehouse of the appellant at Siliguri and assessed the damage. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument mentioned that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, the risk of consignment covers to the extent of unloading at the final warehouse. The materials was detected in damaged condition while it was unloaded at Siliguri and for that reason the surveyor was compelled under the terms and conditions of the insurance to come before the final warehouse of appellant at Siliguri to assess the actual damage. So the jurisdiction lies within the Siliguri Forum and Ld. Forum has ample jurisdiction to dispose the consumer dispute as per provisions of CP Act, 1986. Ld. Advocate of the respondent no. 1 to 3 countered this argument by saying that the insurance company had a limited liability of which covers the risks only to the transit of the consignment through the sea and the risk completes when it was unloaded from the ship to the dock. He further mentioned that in the instant case the consignment was unloaded at Calcutta dock and at that point the coverage risk ends there. So in this case there was no cause of action at Siliguri and for that reason Ld. Forum correctly opined that the Siliguri Forum had no jurisdiction to meet the dispute.

After going through the valuable arguments canvassed before this commission very carefully, we find that surveyor Wilson that is respondent no. 3 was the fixed surveyor as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure-6) and the condition column of the insurance policy clearly stipulated that covering all risks including loading and unloading from warehouse to final warehouse. Here in this case, the consignment was at first unloaded at Calcutta Dock from the ship and thereafter it was stagged for temporary period to warehouse at Calcutta and finally it was transited to the final warehouse at siliguri where it was unloaded and as per terms and conditions of the policy, risk coverage became complete while it was unloaded at final warehouse at Siliguri. So the facts and circumstances of the case clearly speaks that the part cause of action was there within the Siliguri PS that is within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri  has got ample jurisdiction to settle the consumer dispute as per provisions of CP Act, 1986.

Therefore, the Commission’s considered view is that the Forum has committed a wrong at the time of determining the actual jurisdiction of the case and in that perspective the impugned order of Ld. Forum appears to be irregular and not vested with the law.

It appears that the case relates to repudiation of the claim of the complainant/appellant by the insurance authority and it was communicated to the appellant on 9/8/2016 and the case was instituted within stipulated period of  limitation that is within two years from the date of cause of action. So there is no necessity to have a further admission of this case as apparently the consumer complaint was filed within the time and part cause of action is there within the jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. All the necessary parties of this case has already recorded their appearances before this Commission so there is no need to issue process upon the parties to this case.

Hence it is,

Ordred,

That the appeal be and the same, is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. The order of LD. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri vide order no. 3 dated 27/7/2018 in reference to CC no. 74/S/2018 is hereby set aside.

The respondents of this case who also are the Opposite Parties of consumer complaint no. 74/S/2018 are asked to submit the WV within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of order of this appeal before Ld. Forum if they have necessity  to contest the case. Ld. Forum is requested to dispose of the case within a short span of time as per provisions of law.

Copy of order of this appeal be supplied to the parties free of cost. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri by E-mail.