| ORDER | Date of Decision: 16.07.2014 First Appeal No. – 1043/2012(Arising from the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by District Forum, Distt. East in Complaint Case No. 723/2012) Shri Dev Chandra Jha, R/o B-1/247-C, Gali No.9, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096. | | …………… Appellant | | | | | | | | | Vs | | National Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Manager/ Authorized Representative, Scope Minar, 11th Floor, Distt. Center, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. | | | | | ……….. Respondent | | | | Coram SalmaNoor,PresidingMember NP Kaushik,Member(Judicial) | | | 1. | Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? | 2. | To be referred to the reporter or not? | N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial) | | | | | |
- We have heard Shri Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Manish Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent.
- The Appellant has impugned the order dated 27.9.12 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Distt. East, Saini Enclave, Delhi. Impugned order is reproduced below:
“Heard the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused two judgements submitted with regard to the jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Apex Court has very categorically stated in a judgement that complaint can only be filed where the cause of action has arisen. In this particular case there is no an iota of cause of action being arisen within the territory of NCT of Delhi. Only point raised is that the insurance company having offices or branch office within the territory of Delhi. In view of the above, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Let it be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper forum where it may be filed.” - Counsels present have relied upon the case of Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Ltd. of Supreme Court of India in Appeal No. 1560 of 2004. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that allowing the Complainant to file a complaint at any place where the OP has a branch office would be an absurd interpretation of Section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the OP in the present case has a branch office in Delhi too and he should be allowed to file complaint in Delhi Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly the theft of the Motor Company has taken place in Noida, Respondent admittedly has its branch office in Noida. The territorial jurisdiction is, therefore, of the District Forum, Noida and not the District Forum in Delhi. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
- FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
- A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
| |
