C.C. No. 16 of 18.1.2016
Bhupinder Singh Vs. NIA
21.1.2016:Present: Sh.K.S.Thind, counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
1. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. He has pleaded in para no.12 of his complainant that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction as the complainant is resident of District Patiala and thus this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. The ld. counsel has also argued that since his buffalo had died within the territorial jurisdiction therefore, this Forum has the jurisdiction.
2. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly gone through the complaint alongwith annexed documents, on the point of territorial jurisdiction. As per the documents available on record, it has come to our notice that the Insurance was issued from Malerkotla,District Sangrur, Medical was also conducted at Civil, Vety., Hospital, Sangrur, claim of the deceased buffalo of the complainant was also filed at Malerkotla, District Sangrur, letters were received by the complainant for supply of Tag from the branch office situated at Malerkotla, District Sangrur and decision for the claim is also pending at branch office of OP at Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
3. We are of the considered view that no cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as all the transactions/communications took place between the complainant and the OP/ branch office situated at Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135 has elaborately discussed that where the complaint can be filed on the basis of arising of cause of action, relevant part of the judgment is reproduced; “In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this 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) 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 G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]”
4. In the case of Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s.Automotives Pvt Ltd & Anr, passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.2290 of 2012 decided on 19/2/2013 and in case titled as M/s.Stan Auto Pvt.Ltd Vs Beant Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in FA No.881 of 2012 decided on 30.9.2013. In all the abovesaid judgments the view taken by the Hon’ble Courts are that jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of actual residential, business and working place of OP. In all the aforementioned judgments the law point with regard to the jurisdiction are similar in nature.
5. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion and the observations of Hon’ble Apex court and Hon’ble Commission this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. Hence we direct that the present complaint be returned to the complainant, so that the complainant can seek the redressal of his grievances before the appropriate Fora having territorial jurisdiction. A copy of the complaint be retained.
File be consigned to the record room.
Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput
Member Member President
