BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 09/12/2008
Date of Order : 29/07/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 470/2008
Between
1. Lal, S/o. Ramakrishnan, | :: | Complainants |
Lal Nivas, Vengalloor, Thodupuzha. 2. Venugopal. R., Santhi Bhavan, Kumaramangalam, Thodupuzha. 3. Santhosh, Kallammakkal, Koduveli, Vannappuram, Thodupuzha. |
| (By parties-in-person) |
And
1. Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd., | :: | Opposite parties |
Opp. Private Bus Stand, Kaloor, Ernakulam. 2. Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd., Opp. Federal Bank, Thodupuzha. |
| (Op.pts. 1 & 2 by Adv. Rakesh Roshan. K., 3rd floor, Lalan Towers, High Court Jn., Banerji Road, Ernakulam - 31) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. At the outset, the opposite parties raised the question of maintainability of this complaint. According to the opposite parties, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, since cause of action for this complaint has arisen in Thodupuzha, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. We have heard the counsel for the opposite parties and perused the documents on record.
2. Evidently, the cause of action for this complaint has arisen in Thodupuzha in Idukki District. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP) held as follows :
“ If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that if a cause of action has arisen in Aambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamilnadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with the contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act 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. (Vide GP Sing's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Nineth Edition 2004 Para 79).”
3. The above decision is squarely applicable in the instant case as well. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. So, the complainant is directed to receive back the complaint and the related documents to file the same before the appropriate authority, if so advised.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July 2011.
