BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
R.P.Nos.18/2014 to R.P.No.21/2014 against I.A.Nos.205/2013 to I.A.No.208/2013 in C.C.Nos.304/2013 to C.C.No.307/2013
District Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
- The Div. Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
6-10-3, Hotavari street,
Innispet, Rajahmundry.
- Manager, State Sector Branch
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
United India Towers, 3-5-817 & 818
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
Regd. & Head Office rep. by
Chairman & Managing Director
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
24, Whites Road, Chennai...Rev.Petitioner/O.Ps. in
R.P.Nos.18/14 to 21/2014
- Sri Sai Egg Exports P Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M.Srinivas
Rao, 5-4-585, Nampally,
Hyderabad. Respondent/Complainant in
R.P.Nos.18/14, RP 19/2014 &
RP 21/2014
2. Sri Vijaya Sai Egg Agencies,
Rep. by its Prop. M.Srinivas
Rao, 5-4-585, Nampally,
Hyderabad. Respondent/Complainant in
R.P.Nos.20/14
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.S.Sravan Kumar
(common in all R.Ps.)
Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.K.S.N.Sarma
(common in all R.Ps.)
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada, President.)
***
As the point involved in all these matters is one and the same, these revisions are disposed of by this common order.
The facts in narrow compass are that the complainants approached the District Forum-III, Hyderabad and filed the complaints against opposite parties i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited etc., stating that during subsistence of Marine Cargo Open Insurance Policy between the complainant and first opposite party, certain eggs were transported from Rajahmundry to various parts in Visakhapatnam and during the transit, the eggs were damaged. When claims were made by the complainants, the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim and in those circumstances, the complainants approached the District Forum-III at Hyderabad and filed the said complaints.
Opposite parties filed their written version. At that stage, the opposite parties filed a petition U/s.11 of the Consumer Protection Act requesting the District Forum to give a finding as to whether the District Forum, Hyderabad has jurisdiction or not for the reason that no cause of action arose at Hyderabad.
The District Forum passed the following order:
“This application is filed u/s.11 of C.P.Act praying this Forum to decide the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum as preliminary issue in the interests of justice.
Perused the record. The Petitioners have come up with this application on the ground that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is to be noticed that the Petitioners have already submitted to the jurisdiction of this Forum by filing Written Version. The plea of jurisdiction point will be decided in the main case by framing a separate issue in the main case. Accordingly this petition is disposed off”.
The said order is challenged by the opposite parties in these revision petitions.
Both the counsel tried to advance lengthy arguments but in our considered view it is futile exercise for the reason that the District Forum has not decided anything except stating that the jurisdiction issue will be decided at a later stage. In our considered view, the said view adopted by the District Forum is not correct. May be it is a fact that the opposite parties have objected the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing counter but it does not mean that a petition filed U/s.11 shall not be adjudicated. Section 11 of the Act which deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum clearly mandates that as and when an application with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Forum is filed, it is for the District Forum to decide the same and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. May be it is a fact that written version is filed but it does not preclude the authority i.e. District Forum to decide the jurisdiction.
Accordingly these revision petitions are disposed of with a direction to the District Forum to decide the said jurisdiction issue first before going into the other aspects of the matter. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.30-7-2014.
