Delhi

West Delhi

CC/22/165

MAHESH CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III (WEST)

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058

CASE NO. 165/22

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

Sh Mahesh Chand Ruhela

S/o Sh. Laxmi Chand Ruhela,

R/o Beej Bhawan Delhi IARI, Pusa Campus,

New Delhi

Presently R/o Flat no-704,

Orion Towers, Omaxe City,

Sector 15, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124507                      ……COMPLAINANT                                                 

VERSUS

 

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.                     

502,504,506, 5^th Floor, Mahatta Tower, 54, B-1, Block,

Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058

Through its Chairman/Director                                          ……Opposite Party

 

PRESENT: Counsel for Complainant

Order by: Ms Richa Jindal (Member)                                            

DATE OF INSTITUTION:   JUDGMENT RESERVED  ON:             DATE OF DECISION   :

02.05.2022 05.05.2022 09.05.2022

 

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in service and claiming a sum of Rs. 41,977/- as claim amount and Rs 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) as compensation besides other reliefs.

 

2. A perusal of the record shows that the present complaint was filed on 21/04/2022 before this commission and after so many opportunities given, counsel for the complainant finally appeared on 05/05/2022 and argued to satisfy the commission on territorial jurisdiction and order was reserved.

 

3. After going through the material placed on record, it reveals that the only aspect for consideration before us is whether the present Complaint is maintainable in lieu of territorial jurisdiction under Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

4. As per the law of land, it is already settled that issue of maintainability can be decided at any stage. Reliance is placed on the following judgements:-

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case tilted as “ Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs Shri Ramachander Gehlot” in CA No. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 held that

 

“ Issue of maintainability has to be decided before admitting or hearing the matter on merit.”

 

8. in FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2017 in a case titled “KOSHY VARGHESE THAVALATHI HOUSE, MELE VETTIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA Versus HDFC BANK LTD. & 2 ORS.” Held that

“ It is settled law that the question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings of the case.

In view of the above, the present Appeal as also the Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant before the State Commission is dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to cost.”

5. In the present case admittedly, the complainant is residing at Beej Bhawan, Delhi IARI, Pusa Campus, New Delhi. It is submitted by the Complainant in his complaint that the office of OP is situated at Community Center,Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, so, this Commission is competent to adjudicate the matter. The perusal of the file shows that the Complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action occurred at the office of the OP at Unit No. 502, 504, 506 5^th Floor, Mahatta Tower,54, B-1 Block, Community Center, Janak Puri Delhi-110058. Hence no cause of action or any part of the cause of action arose at Janak Puri. On the contrary, the certificate of policy schedule placed on record by the complainant shows that OP’s Policy issuing office is located at K.G. Marg, N. Delhi-110001. Therefore neither complainant nor OP or any part, cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

6. It would be pertinent to begin our discussion by referring to the territorial jurisdiction under Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:

 

          Section 34 (2) in The Consumer Protection Act 2019

A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

2. 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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or

3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

4. the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

7.       Admittedly the complainant has failed to place on record any document which proves that any cause of action or part of it arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, neither the complainant nor the OP or the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission.

 

8. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where the following order has been passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“ In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. 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. In the present case, since the cause of action arose in Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

<>9.         

<>.Further National Consumer Disputes Redressal also took the same view in United Airlines vs Saurabh Kalani &Anr 

vide RevisionPETITION NO. 294 OF 2016

decided on 4 August 2016 and held that :

 “ From the facts available on record and a perusal of the copy of the complaint, it is very clear that the

 complainant travelled from Mumbai to USA and also returned to Mumbai on the ticket booked by him, through a travel agent.

  It is quite clear that neither the travel was performed from Delhi, nor the tickets were booked from Delhi, 

but the complaint has been filed before the District Forum at Delhi on the ground that the Airlines have a branch 

office in Delhi. I, however, do not find any justification to agree with this contention of the complainant. 

the complainant should have filed the complaint where the cause of action had arisen, i.e., at Mumbai, from where the

 complainant travelled to USA and also returned to that place.  Therefore, there is force in this revision petition and 

the same is allowed and the orders passed by consumer fora below with regard to territorial jurisdiction are set aside.

 

In view of the above, since the complainant has failed to place on record any incident or document which shows that the cause of action occurred in Moti Nagar, New Delhi.

 

10. We are, therefore, of the view that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint about the want of territorial jurisdiction. We are expressing this view in light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled M/s Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited and Hon’ble NCDRC titled United Airlines vs Saurabh Kalani &Anr.

 

11. The consumer complaint filed before the Commission stands dismissed on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction.  However, the complaint is given the liberty to file a fresh complaint at the place where the cause of action had arisen in the present case.

 

12. The complaint is therefore directed to be returned to the complainant along with annexures against acknowledgement. A copy of the complaint should be retained for records. The complaint is disposed of accordingly in the above terms.

 

A copy of the order will be sent to the complainant free of cost by post.

 

Orders should be sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room, in open Commission on 09/05/2022

 

 

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President