DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

M/s KESO TRANS India through its Prop. Sohan Singh Bhardwaj, Address: Plot No. 777, Sector 82, Industrial Area, JLPL, SAS Nagar, Mohali- Punjab 160062.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office at IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through Its Managing Director. 

2]  IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Plot No. 2B & C, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 160002, through Its Branch Manager/Head.

  ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                  MEMBER

Present   :    None for the Complainant.

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

         The complainant has filed the present complaint against Opposite Parties seeking relief on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is fixed for preliminary hearing. It is observed that office has reported that it needs to be seen by the bench of this Commission that whether this District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to hear, entertain and adjudicate upon the present complaint or not?

         It is observed that on the date before last date of hearing Ld.Advocate sought a date for consideration on preliminary admission when specific query regarding competency of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of this District Commission to entertain and adjudicate upon present complaint was raised by this bench which is to be answered by the Ld. Counsel. Today, none came present to answer to the query of this bench about the competency of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of this District Commission especially when neither complainant nor any opposite parties reside or work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Moreover, no cause of action or its part arose within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

         In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India tilted as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 D/d 20.10.2009 held that “Branch Office” means the branch office where cause of action has arisen Hon’ble Supreme Court of India did not agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that mere Branch office entitle a complainant to fie complaint where ever there is a branch office. Hon’ble Supreme Court uphold that only branch office which has nexus with the cause of action is competent to hear, entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint within its territorial jurisdiction.

         In the present complaint, there is no nexus between cause of action or its part and branch office situated at Chandigarh. Hence, this complaint is disposed off and returned to the complainant to file fresh before Competent and Appropriate District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission having territorial Jurisdiction.

(2)          The copies of all the sets of the complaint/original documents, if any be returned to the complainant after retaining one true certified copy of the complaint for record.  

(3)        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.   

(4)        After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER