BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
I.A. No. 236/2010
in
C.C. No. 310/2008
Dated : 03.01.2011
Complainant:
Sugathan, S/o Late Sanku, Puthuvalil Veedu, Karara, Madathara P.O, Kollam.
(By adv. K.P. Vijayan)
Opposite parties:
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kasthurbah Building, Pulamon Junction, Kottarakkara.
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. S. Subha)
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the opposite parties to hear the maintainability of the complaint on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Submission urged by the opposite parties is that the cause of action for this complaint has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case, that they had raised the question of territorial jurisdiction in their version. It is argued by the opposite parties that the allegation in the complaint is that his vehicle bearing KL-2-2277 sustained damages on
28.07.2003 in an accident occurred at Chavara Puthen Chanthai Temple, that the policy of the said vehicle was taken on 28.07.2003 from the 1st opposite party at Kottarakkara Branch which comes within the jurisdiction of Kollam Divisional Office. On going through the complaint it is seen that the allegation raised by the opposite parties is correct. Earlier, though opposite parties raised the issue regarding limitation on 09.11.2009, we decided to consider the same along with the complaint. Thereafter opposite parties filed this petition on 23.07.2010. No written objection filed by the complainant. We heard the oral objection of the complainant. The issue herein is in regard to the territorial jurisdiction which comes under Sec. 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, wherein it is stipulated that a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite parties reside or carry business or the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Here the whole cause of action has taken place at Kottarakkara. The claim was repudiated by the branch office at Kottarakkara and communicated to the complainant at his residential address at Kollam. Expression 'branch office' would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. Since no cause of action has arisen at Thiruvananthapuram, we have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In view of the above, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and complaint is returned to the complainant with liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of grievance if any.
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
