Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.              The case of the complainant, nutshell is that   the complainant has opened one S.B. Account under OP No.3 and she was issued a credit card which has facility of traveling abroad and hassle free way to carry money for the payment in the foreign countries. It is alleged that the said card covered under the insurance policy with claim covering the risk during the travel. It is alleged  that  on 03.10.2007  the complainant alongwith  her daughter had been   to foreign police department for  registering her daughter’s  name  for her study in the foreign country  and had to stand in a long queue  of about 500 persons   and while so standing after some time she could realize that her wallet containing some amount, important documents, cards  etc.   have been stolen away. So, he informed the local office of OP No.4. She claimed insurance claim   for Rs.2,00,000/- and the OP No.4 asked to file the copy of the FIR and D.L. etc. Upon information OP No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim on the ground that the fraudulent transaction has taken place for withdrawal of the  money. Since, the repudiation of claim is illegal, she filed the complaint case.

4.            The OP No.1 & 2 filed joint written version stating that the complainant  has no cause of action to file the present complaint and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Cuttack. It is alleged that OP No.5 has been added jointly to show the territorial jurisdiction but no part of jurisdiction occurred with OP No.5.  Therefore, OP No.1 & 2 have no deficiency in service   on their part.

5.              OP No.3 & 4 filed written version alleging that the complainant is not a consumer and   has no cause of action to  file complaint. She has also challenged that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant alleges about missing of important documents. Immediately after getting about information about stolen of document, the OP No.1 freezed the account of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nol.3 & 4.

 6.        After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint.

7.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has got good case and he has purchased the card to get certain benefits but due to theft  of personal luggage he has got  cause of action against the OPs. According to him the police has been informed. Since, no action was taken by the OPs and learned District Forum, without understanding the case has passed the impugned order. Therefore he submitted to remand the matter to the learned District Forum to consider the case afresh.

 8.               Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and the discussed the case properly. On the otherhand, he supports the impugned order.

9.                Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.           No doubt the complainant is to discharge the entire burden of proving her case. She has categorically stated in the complaint that she has got the card having facility of travelling aboard and after all she has got of opportunity to spend money in foreign countries. It is also revealed from her affidavit that on 03.10.2007 the complainant alongwith her daughter had been   to foreign police department for registering her daughter’s name for her study in the foreign country and had to stand in a long que of about 500 persons   and while so standing after some time she could realize that her wallet containing some amount, important documents, cards etc.   have been stolen away. So, she informed the local office of OP No.4. She claimed insurance claim   for Rs.2,00,000/-. It appears from them that OP No.4 asked to provide the documents like FIR and other documents. Be that as it may, we find that the entire allegations are made against OP No.1 to 4. OP No.5 has been added subsequently but as it appears none of the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum, Cuttack but OP No.5 has been added because it is branch office of OP No.3. The cause title also shows that OP No.1 & 4 do not  live within the jurisdiction of learned District Forum, Cuttack, only OP No.5 has got branch office at Cuttack. Since, there is no cause of action or part of cause of action within jurisdiction of OP No.5 occurred, the impleaded OP No.5 is of no use.

11.             Section-11 of the Act is as follows:-

              (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 twenty lakhs).

              (2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdictions -

(a)  the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the 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, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the 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

 © the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

12.                     The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in Sonic Surgical -Vrs- National Insurance Co. Ltd. disposed of on 20.10.2009  held  that a District Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint  if main office or  branch office where cause of action  or part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of  and learned District Forum, Cuttack. Thus, no cause of action arose with OP No.5 at Cuttack even if the branch office is there, the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, Cuttack is actually lacking. Learned District Forum has also come to same conclusion. Learned District Forum has also disposed of the case on merit.

13.         When learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

                    Hence, the impugned order is confirmed.

                   The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

                           Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                          DFR be sent back forthwith.