The case of the complainants is that they were lured by the OP to erect Mobile Tower in their schedule mentioned plot and made survey in the plot with men of OP No.3. They handed over the copy of Parcha and other relevant documents in respect of the plot. The OPs also visited his house and advised to make an insurance policy of the scheduled plot before erection of Tower. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50000/- to the OP for insurance. The Op supplied them a Health Insurance policy of Cigma TTK Lifestyle Protection Health Insurance being No.LPGPAD000000001 for the period from 5/6/2017 to 4/6/2018. Taking the advantage of unemployment of complainants the OP duped the complainants and falsely assured to give a job at the Tower Point. The OP did not erect the Tower of Mobile in the impugned plot so the complainants getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying for direction upon the OP to return back the premium amount, compensation and litigation cost.

 The OP No.4 appeared and filed a petition on 21.6.2018 to dismiss the complaint petition as it is not maintainable before this Forum due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The OP no.4 having its office at 401/402, Raheja Titenuim, Western express, High way, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. The OP No.4 and other OPs has no branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. By stating the Section-11 of C.P. Act the O.P. No.4 assailed that according to Section-11(2)(a) & (b) the O.P. or each of the O.P. where there are more than one at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the O.ps. who do not resides or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.  The O.P. No.4 prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as it is filed out of jurisdiction.  The complainant filed written objection in respect of non-maintainability petition dated 21.6.2018 and assailed that O.P. No.1 to 3 being Destimony Security Pvt. Ltd. Company situated at Salt Lake made an agreement with this complainant to erect a tower and took Rs.50,000/- through cheque from this complainant and in collusion with O.P. No.4 made an insurance policy of O.P. No.4 without the consent of this complainant.  So, the O.P. No.1 to 3 in connivance with the O.P. No.4 illegally insured the complainant and caused loss of this complainant.  As a result the complainant suffered loss on the deficiency of service/ unfair trade practice of O.P. No.1 to 4.  So, the petition filed by the O.P. No.4 is deserved to be dismissed with cost.

After perusing the case record and hearing the parties/advocates of the parties it appears that the complainant made agreement with O.P. in his residence to erect a mobile tower in his plot of land.  The complainant was convinced by the O.P. that for erection of mobile tower there is necessity to make insurance.  As such the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the O.P. No.1 to 3 who on their turn provided the complainant health insurance policy of O.P. No.4.  From the face of the case record it is crystal clear that the complainant is totally ignorant regarding the Pro Health Group Insurance Policy of O.P. No.4.  Getting the insurance policy the complainant became perplexed and he expressed his resentment to the O.Ps. They came to know that they are duped by the O.ps. As the O.P. No.1 to 3 failed to erect any mobile tower in his place and also failed to provide job at the point of tower.  According to the complainants the O.P. No.1 to 3 falsely convinced the complainants to make insurance but the complainant is fully ignorant regarding such health insurance of O.P. No.4.   According to the complainant the whole episode took place at the place of the complainant which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  So, the complaint petition filed by the complainant before this Forum taking the plea that the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of this Forum.     

   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.         

We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid decision of IFB Automotive Seating and System Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India, AIR 2003, Calcutta,80 with the question as to the meaning of the expression ‘cause of action’. Hence we find after perusing the case record that there is no evidence from which we can infer that whole or part of the cause of action in the present case arose at Hooghly district.

 In the instant case the address of all the Ops are outside the jurisdiction of this Forum so the petition filed by the OP No.4 has sufficient merit as the complaint petition filed by the complainant not in accordance with the provision of section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the petition filed by the opposite party No.4 dated 21.6.2018 has sufficient merit and should be allowed.

Hence it is ordered that the petition filed by the opposite party No.4 dated 21.6.2018 is allowed on contest. The petition is thus disposed of.

The complaint petition filed by the complainant deserved to be dismissed as not maintainable being beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that the c.c. case being no.178 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.