STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. R/148/2015
(Against the order dated 20-07-2015 in Complaint Case
No. 188/2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Varanasi )
- Sahara India Commerical Corporation Ltd.
Sector Lahuraveer, Regional Varanasi
Branch Mugalsarai, Varanasi.
- Sahara India
Branch Mugalsarai, Govind Katra
Nai Basti, Mugalsarai
District Chandouli
- Sahara Audit Commercial Corporation Ltd.
Sahara India Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex
Lucknow
...Revisionists
Vs.
Smt. Sarita Pathak
W/o Late Pradeep Pathak
Village Akbarpur, Deduwana
Kerakat, Jaunpur.
...Opposite parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Revisionist : Mr. Aalok Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : None appeared.
Dated : 04-07-2017
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
This is a revision filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986against order dated 20-07-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.188/2013 Smt. Sarita Pathak V/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited and others whereby the District Consumer Forum, Varanasi has overruled objection filed by the opposite party regarding territorial jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum and has held that the District Consumer Forum, Varanasi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint.
Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties of complaint; Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited Region Varanasi, Sahara India branch Mugalsarai and Sahara Audit
:2:
Commercial Corporation Limited, Lucknow have filed this revision petition before State Commission.
Mr. Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists appeared.
None appeared for opposite party inspite of sufficient service of notice.
I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and perused impugned order as well as records.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the District Consumer Forum, Varanasi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Complaint itself reveals that the cause of action has arisen in District Chandauli where office of opposite party no.3 is situated. The order passed by District Consumer Forum, Varanasi is against provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as proposition laid down by Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2010(1) CPR 28(SC).
I have considered submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionists.
Complainant Smt. Sarita Pathak has filed complaint against above opposite parties before District Consumer Forum, Varanasi with allegation that her husband had deposited Rs.10,000/- in Rajat Yojana of opposite parties wherein accidental death help (Insurance) is provided by opposite parties. It has been further alleged by complainant that her husband has died in a road accident on 09-04-2012. Thereafter complainant moved application for accidental death benefit as nominee of her deceased husband. She sent last letter in this respect to opposite party no.2 which was replied by opposite party no.3 on 03-06-2013 and complainant was informed that she has not moved application within time prescribed.
It has been alleged by complainant that her husband has died while he was working in office of opposite party no.3 in District Chandauli.
In complaint jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Varanasi has been invoked on the ground that the opposite party no.1 Sahara Audit Commercial Corporation Limited, Lucknow has a sector office at Lahuravir within territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Varanasi. There is
:3:
no averment in complaint to show that the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen in District Varanasi.
In the case of Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Company Limited (supra) Honourable Supreme Court has considered provisions of Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which are identical to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 dealing with jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum. Honourable Apex Court has held as under:-
“Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. 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 filed 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 plan 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]”
In view of discussion made above considering the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as proposition laid down by Honourable Apex Court in above case District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint merely on the ground that opposite party no.1 has a sector office in Varanasi. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law.
Revision is allowed. Order passed by District Consumer Forum, Varanasi is set aside. Objection filed by revisionist before District Consumer
:4:
Forum, Varanasi is allowed and it is held that the cognizance of complaint taken by District Consumer Forum, Varanasi is without jurisdiction. The District Consumer Forum, Varanasi shall return complaint to complainant for presentation before proper Forum.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
