Order no.3 dated 27.02.2019: Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admission. Heard agent of the complainant & perused the case record it appears that the complainant insured his vehicle before the opposite party effect from 08.01.2017 to 07.01.2018 from the Midnapore divisional office of National Insurance and paid the insurance premium of Rs.36697/-. The said vehicle met an accident on 01.07.2017 at NH-60 under Sadaipur P.S., Dist.- Birbhum and a P.S. case started under sections 279, 304A & 427 IPC. Then the complainant incurred expenses of more than Rs.422539/- for the repair of his vehicle but the surveyor of the opposite party insurance Company assessed the loss amounting to Rs.247000/-. Inspite of receiving all the documents from the complainant the opposite party failed to settle the claim of the complainant as result a the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite party.
After perusing the complaint petition and hearing the case record it appears that the office address of the opposite party from which the complainant purchased the insurance policy is in the district Paschim Medinipur. The accident took place at Sadaipur P.S., Dist- Birbhum but the complaint petition filed in the CDRF, Hooghly taking the territorial jurisdiction of branch office at Chandannagore.
We may refer a case of Hon’ble State Commission, HP, 2013(4) CPR 43(HP), Regional Centre (ECHS) Cantt & Othrs Vs. Ram Kumar Sharma it is decided by the Hon’ble State Commission that mere location of a branch/or office of the Opposite Party within area of particular Forum does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon Forum for that area and jurisdiction would vest in such a Forum if a part of cause of action is also shown to have accrued in that area.
It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision of ONGC ( 1994 AIR, SCW 3287), explained the concept of cause of action as ; It is clear from the above judgement that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case, acts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer jurisdiction on the court concerned.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (2010)3 WBLR (SC) 58 in which it is held that mere location of a branch/ or office of the opposite party within the area of particular Forum does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Forum for that area. Jurisdiction would vest in such a Forum if a part of the cause of action is also shown to have accrued in that area. The Hon’ble Apex Court also hold that an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17(2) of the act, which does not lead to an absurd consequences. 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. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to branch hunting. Court is also in the opinion that the 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 to avoid absurdity.
Upon giving due regards to the observation of the Hon’ble courts we are in the opinion that the complaint petition filed before this Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. As such the complaint petition is not admitted.
