STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :            346 of 2015

Date of Institution:           16.04.2015

Date of Decision :            13.05.2015

Shri Pramod Kumar s/o Sh. Rama Shankar Mishra, r/o (1) H. No.988/10, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, (2) H. No.921, Sector 19, Panchkula.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      The General Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through General Manager/Incharge, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Delhi.

2.      The Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B & C), Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh,

          Through Manager/Authorized Signatory, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, ITGI Strategic Business, MuskarteRaho, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2, (B & C), Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

Present:               Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate for appellant.

                                                              O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated March 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panchkula.

2.      Pramod Kumar-complainant (appellant herein) got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR68A-4531 insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties for the period September 28^th, 2012 to September 27^th, 2013.  The vehicle was stolen on April 20^th, 2013 in the area of Mansa Devi, Panchkula.  The complainant lodged claim with the opposite parties but it was not settled. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, Panchkula. The complaint was dismissed in limine observing that the District Forum at Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction.    

3.      The issue for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the District Forum, Panchkula has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not?

4.      Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act is as under:-

“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) XXXXXXXXXXX

     (b) XXXXXXXXXXX

                         (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”. 

5.      Indisputably, the theft took place in the area of Mansa Devi, Panchkula which falls within territorial jurisdiction of Panchkula. As per Section 11(2)(c), certainly, cause of action arose in the area of District Panchkula. Consequently, the District Forum, Panchkula has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such it fell in error in dismissing the complaint.

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Panchkula to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, Panchkula on 08.07.2015.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

UK