ORDER

 15.05.2017

Smt. Renu Sinha, Member (F).

                            The present Revision petition is being filed by the petitioner- National Insurance co. ltd. challenging  the order dt.06-06-16, passed by the District Forum Vaishali, in complaint case no.29/13 wherein the preliminary  objection raised with   on the point of territorial jurisdiction  by the op Insurance,  stood rejected.

2.            It has been submitted by the petitioner Insurance co. that the complainant  filed the complaint case in the District Forum Vaishali for non settlement of the claim amount  of the expenditure on account of repairing of the truck which got  damaged in road accident within the period of the policy was insured with the petitioner insurance co.. it has been submitted by the petitioner that since the said truck of the complainant was finance by the M/S New Magma Finance Corp. Ltd. at Patna and also the place of accident and appointment of surveyor within the District of Patna and the said policy issued against the  vehicle of the complainant   from petitioner branch office situated at Kolkatta and the complainant presently residing at Patna, has no occasion to  file the complaint at District Forum –Vaishali,  where no  any cause of action arose  and  filing the complaint only on the basis of branch office of insurance co. situated at Vaishali District is  against the provision  of the C.P. Act.  Therefore,  the District Forum  by rejecting the objection petition of insurance co. challenging the maintainability of the complaint  on the point of territorial jurisdiction at Vaishali  committed error and  without having valid territorial jurisdiction passed the order which is  not legal and sustainable under the law,  supported with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the matter passed  taking note of the section 17(2) of the C.P. Act   in case of Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance co. ltd. as  reported in 2010(1)CPR 28 SC, settled the position of law  that  “the expression ‘branch office’ where the cause of action has arisen”.  In view of above settled principal of law the order dt.06-06-16 is fit to be set aside.

3.                 Heard the counsel for the Petitioner- Insurance co.. No one appeared for the op/complainant in spite of service of notice. We have perused the materials available on record as well at the impugned order dt.06-06-16  and the decision of the Apex Court as mentioned above filed by the Petitioner Insurance co. on the issue in detail.

4.                    In view of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex court on the matter after  consideration of the section 17(2) of the C.P.Act with respect to Jurisdiction to entertain a case with observation  that “ not agreed with the contention  that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file claim petition even it Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance co. is situated” and held that “ in our opinion the branch office in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.” Therefore, in view of above legal position of law,   the complaint case filed at District Forum -Vaishali  only on the basis  existence of a  branch office of the insurance co. at Vaishali District  where  no any cause of action accrued, we find that under the circumstance,   the District Forum- Vaishali  has  no valid territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case.     As such, the  impugned order  dt.06-06-16 passed in complaint case no.29/13 appears  not proper and legal and the same is set aside.

6.                  In result, the appeal stands allowed.

S.K. Sinha                             Upendra Jha                       Renu Sinha

President                              Member(M)                         Member(F)

        Mukund