Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmed     V/s   Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd.

Case No. 202/2020

03.12.2020

1. This case is at initial stage.
2. Instant complaint is filed by the Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmed, the  complainant against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (in short OP) for allowance of the insurance claim. The complainant had got his vehicle insured with OP at the branch office Patna, Bihar. The policy was valid from 21.01.2019 to 20.01.2020. Complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 23.02.2019 while going towards Muzafarpur, Bihar. FIR of the accident is registered at District Gopal Gunj, Bihar. It is stated that the claim of the complainant is repudiated vide letter no. :IffcoTokio/CSC/Lucknow/2020-21 dated 13.02.2020.
3. From the facts stated above, it is clear that no cause of action in part or whole has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum. Further the counsel for the complainant was asked as to why he has filed the complaint in this Forum. He replied that as the registered office of OP falls within the jurisdiction of this Forum hence the instant complaint has been filed here.
4. As per section 34(2) of 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.

5. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40.        In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arises.
6. On perusal, it is noticed that no document has been adduced by the complainant which would reflect that cause of action whole or in part has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, the complaint is returned for want of territorial jurisdiction.
7. Complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction within 4 weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 1 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 03.12.2020.