Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has filed this Revision Petition against the Order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’) dated 14.03.2023 wherein the Appeal of the Respondent Insurance Company was allowed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Datia (for short ‘District Commission’) was set aside and the Complaint dismissed. 

He submitted that the State Commission has gone into the aspect of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission which had passed its Order dated 17.02.2012 wherein certain relief was granted to the Petitioner/Complainant. 

He further submitted that in the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was not at all raised and despite that the State Commission has passed an Order only on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission.

Learned Counsel further drew attention to Section-11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if any of the Opposite Parties where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the Complaint, such Complaint can be instituted in such District Forum.  Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent No.2 Finance Company has a branch office in Datia.  Further, the Complainant resides in Datia.

 Perused the record, it is a fact that the State Commission did not look into the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company on merits rather it just dismissed the Complaint on territorial jurisdiction.  In our considered opinion, even if, the State Commission, had in mind, which of course has not been pointed out, that the Complaint should have been instituted at the place where theft took place which is Gwalior, such clarity should have been put forth by the State Commission.  After having the matter already been decided on merits by the District Commission, and noting that both the Districts fall under the purview of the State Commission, the State Commission in a consumer complaint could have heard the matter on merits.

Be that as it may, the primary fact to be taken into note is that the Appellant before the State Commission did not take the ground of territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the Order of the State Commission is bad in law.

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the State Commission to hear the same on merits.

The Order of the State Commission dated 14.03.2023 is set-aside.

Parties to appear before the State Commission on 22.01.2025.

Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.