Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President :
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navi Mumbai in consumer complaint No. 44/2011 decided on 5.5.2011. The consumer complaint has been rejected on a ground of want of territorial jurisdiction at the stage of admission itself.
2. The appellant is the original complainant while respondents are original opponents, for the sake of brevity, they are referred as ‘complainant’ and ‘opponent’ respectively in this matter.
3. The complainant Smt. Rotangan Meera Shankarlalji is a wife of deceased Shri Rotangan Shankarlal Virji. On her behalf, one Mr. Suresh N. Kumavat has filed this complaint. Opponent No. 1 is Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd. while Opponent No. 2 is H.D.F.C. Bank. The office of the Opponent No. 1 is located at second floor, Extreme, Near Holly Family Church, Andheri-Kurla Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai 400 099. This said office of the Opponent No. 1 located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra and commonly known by the public as a Bandra District Forum. The address of Opponent No.2 as shown in the complaint is Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel(W), Mumbai, this is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Parel, Mumbai. However, the complaint has been filed by the complainant before the Additional Thane District Forum. Both the opponents are not located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Additional Thane District Forum.
4. There is one more angle to this complaint. The deceased Rotangan S. Virji has taken Life Insurance Policy from the Opponent No. 1 and since the husband of the complainant Mr. Rotangan S. Virji had expired, complainant’s wife is claiming life insurance claim on the basis of the said insurance policy. No doubt, if the insurer is in existence and within the insurance period death has taken place, the Insurance Co. may be liable for payment of a claim. But that will be a different aspect which will have to be considered on merit. Suffice to note at this stage that the claim of the Opponent No. 1 is based upon the Life Insurance Policy issued by the Opponent No.1 and since there is a death of husband of the Complainant, she has to claim the amount of compensation on the basis of the said policy.
5. So far as Opponent No. 2 is concerned, Opponent No. 2 has nothing to do with the Insurance Policy issued by the Opponent No. 1. The deceased, husband of the complainant has taken loan from the HDFC Bank for purchase of one vehicle viz. Maruti Van and the loan of the said amount is existing and since it was not paid after the death of the deceased, husband of the Complainant, dues of Opponent No. 2 are yet to be paid. Therefore, apprehending action on the part of the Opponent No. 2 to recover the amount of the loan. Thus what we find for the sake of argument that if we accept that there is consumer claim as against the Opponent No. 1 and 2 by the Complainant, however, this consumer claim based upon different activities and causes of action for both the activities are separate and cannot be clubbed together. Separate complaints as against Opponent No. 1 or Opponent No.2 may be tenable but instead of filing separate complaints as against Opponent No. 1 & 2, a joint composite complaint has been filed. That too has been filed in the District Forum within the local jurisdiction of that Forum viz. District Thane. Both Opponents are not residing there. It is contemplated under sec 12. Sec 11 of the Consumer Protection Act dealt with the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Such section 11 lays down as follows :
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum :- (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 complainant 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 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 or 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 opponent 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 case of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
6. Sub-section 2(a) of section 11 contemplates that the Opponent or each of the Opponents where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or personally works for gain. If we take this aspect into consideration. None of the opponents are carrying out their business within the local jurisdiction of the Additional Thane District Forum. If we look to the address given in the complaint, then sun-section (b) is somehow relevant. According to the sub-section 2(b) of section 11, if in the particular case, one of the party is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum but other party is not residing with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, then the Complainant is under obligation to seek permission from the District Forum to institute such a complaint. However, in the present complaint at the stage of admission itself, the District Forum has noted this aspect and found that there is no application seeking permission. Ld.Counel invited our attention to para 21 of the complaint which is as follows :
“21 : Complainant further submit that the District Forum of CBD Belapur sitting at Kokan Bhavan is within the territorial jurisdiction of the present complaint as per section 11(2 a & b) of the Consumer Protection Act because one of the opposite party is having branch office at Vashi, Navi Mumbai.”
7. What is made to be noted that one of the branch office of the Opponent No. 1 carried out business in Vashi is not a party made to the proceeding. Therefore, both the parties in the complaint as stated carrying out their business within the territorial jurisdiction of two different District Forums viz. Central Mumbai at Parel, Mumbai and Suburban District Forum at Bandra, Mumbai. So far, record is concerned, there is no Opponent on record who is carrying out any business within the jurisdiction of the Additional Thane District Forum. Thus one aspect has been considered by the District Forum viz. non-compliance of section 11 (2)(a)& (b) and rejected the complaint.
8. In respect of the amount of loan which has been given by the HDFC Bank, the complainant suffers from mis-joinder of the cause of action, mis-joinder of territorial jurisdiction, wrongly making parties which are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. We find this composite complaint suffers from multiple defects which are requires to be rectified by the complainant and therefore, in stead of entertaining complaint, District Forum has rejected the complaint.
9. All this pointed out when the matter appeared before this Commission on 17.10.2011 through the Ld. Counsel and the time was granted to consider as to whether he could take appropriate steps. However, today he has presented an application and instead of taking appropriate steps, he has tried to amend the complaint and the suggestions which are made in the para 3 of the application are as follows :
“ It is further submitted that to avoid further technical lapse and as a remedial relief the prayer clause of the complaint bearing No.44/2011, be alter by addition No.1, wherever the Opponent is written, and Opponent No.2, title be treated as performa Opponent No.2, instead of filing two separate complaint for two policies as referred by Hon. Commission to avoid further complication in the complaint as relief against Opponent No. 2, is possible when Opponent No. 1, pays the compensation, to the Complainant, on Suraksha Kawach Policy.”
10. Thus what we find that instead of selecting remedy of filing two complaints based on separate cause of action and instead of invoking appropriate territorial jurisdiction of the respect District Forum, the attempt is being made to see that the complaint proceeded. This application is without any merit and we reject the said application. Ultimately, what we find that there is no substance in the appeal and pass the following order :
Appeal is hereby rejected.
Pronounced dated 19th October 2011.
