KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 322/2009

JUDGMENT DATED:  17-11-2009

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                           :  MEMBER

MS. Ashique Chemicals and Cosmetics,                   :  APPELLANT

Poothicaud, Poomala P.O.,

Sultans’ Battery, Wayanad District

            (Rep. by Adv. Sri. P. Raghunathan)

                                    Vs

1.      New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,                :  RESPONDENTS

            Divisional Office,

            Silver Plaza Building,

            I.G. Road, Calicut.

2.      New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

          M.G.T. Building,

          Kalpetta North,

          Wayanad District.

(R1 & R2 rep. by Adv. Sri. Thomas P. Jacob)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the complainants in CC No. 393/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.  The order challenged is the one with respect to the territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

          2.      The case relates to the Marine Insurance cover with respect to two consignments of ceramic tiles from China to Chennai Port.  The consignments were insured at the branch office of the opposite party at Wayanad ie, opposite part No. 2.  Opposite party No. 1 is the Divisional Office of the above Insurance Company situated at Kozhikkode.  The complaint was instituted at Kozhikkode.  The opposite parties disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the CDRF, Kozhikkode as the above office is in no way connected with the contract involved.  Hence the Forum held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

          3.      It is contended by the appellant/complainant that as per Section 11(2)(a) of CP Act, the complaint is maintainable as the opposite party has got a branch office at Kozhikkode. It is also contended that several letters were written to the first opposite party, the Kozhikkode office which is the Divisional Office and the first opposite party has also written several letters to the complainant in the matter.  The Counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision reported in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Shri. Dinesh Bhai Trivedi 2001 CTJ 817 (CP) wherein the matter related to the complaint filed at Calcutta whereas the complainant commenced the journey at New Delhi and the incident involved took place at New Delhi.  The National Commission rejected the contention of the Railways that the West Bengal State Commission is not having jurisdiction.  The contention was rejected on the ground that as per Section 11(2) the Railways have an office at Calcutta, although the complaint was dismissed on facts.  The respondent/opposite parties have relied on the decision of the National Commission in American Express Bank Ltd. Travel Related Services & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Gupta & Ors. 2000 (1) CPR 22 (NC).  In the above case the National Commission upheld in the contention of the appellant/opposite parties that the State Commission at Calcutta is not having jurisdiction as the entire cause of action has taken place at New Delhi.  The Commission  reiterated the earlier view of the National Commission in Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmadabad, 1991 CPJ 686 that it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaints instituted against the Corporation, Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory  or the location of the principal office of the Corporation within its territory.  It was also observed that there should be a purposive interpretation of the provisions.  It was held that the CDRF, Calcutta is having no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action had taken place at Calcutta.  In the above case the travelers’ cheques involved were purchased at Delhi; those were lost in Delhi; matter was reported to the police at Delhi; claim for refund of the amount was lodged with the Delhi branch of the bank; the matter was investigated by the Delhi branch of the bank and the claim was rejected by the Delhi branch and communicated to the complainant at his business address at Noida near Delhi; and only because the appellant had a branch at Calcutta, the complaint has been filed at Calcutta. 

4.      We find that in the instant case the facts are similar to the American Express Bank Ltd. case.   The ratio of the decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shri. Dinesh Bhai Trivedi (op.cit) has to be confined to the facts of the particular case.  The National Commission in the above case has not considered the point in detail also, as the case was disposed of mainly on other grounds.  In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  Hence the appeal is dismissed.

                                                JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                                                  M.K. ABDULLA SONA        :  MEMBER

Sr.