Delhi

North East

CC/112/2017

KASHYAP KUMAR SADH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 112/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Kashyap Kumar Sadh R/o 141, Old Anarkali Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.	Complainant
	Versus
	TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall Plot No.2, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh Pitampura, Delhi-110034.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

31.03.2017 24.01.2020 24.01.2020

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Complainant was directed vide order dated 23.09.2019 to satisfy this Forum on maintainability of this complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction since as per the settled law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs Shri Ramachander Gehlot in CA no. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that issue of maintainability has to be decided before hearing the matter on merit and in judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Koshy Varghese Vs HDFC Bank Ltd III (2017) CPJ 52 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we shall adjudicate the admissibility / non-admissibility of the present complaint.
2. We have heard the arguments addressed by counsel for complainant and have perused the relevant documents for deciding the present complaint on admission. OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.10.2017.

Let us examine Section 11(2) (a),(b),(c) of the CPA which governs the determination of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum for entertaining a complaint and leaves no ambiguity for admission of complaint to be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party (ies) or any of the opposite parties 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 and in case of several opposite parties, complaint to be filed only at one particular place on the choice of the complainant subject to the condition that;

1. the District Forum, where the complaint has been instituted has given permission to the complainant to institute his complaint in that Forum despite the fact that some of the opposite parties are not residing or not having branch, or are not carrying on business or are not working for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such District Forum; or
2. the opposite parties not so residing, or not having branch office or not carrying on business or not personally working for gain within such territorial limits, acquiesce in such institution.

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs C.P. Agencies AIR 1960 SC 1309 had held that “cause of action” is taken to mean every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to the judgment of court. Therefore the entire plaint has to be taken in to consideration to ascertain the bundle of facts which gave rise to cause of action and to determine whether any one or more of such facts accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The expression “wholly or in part arises” as per Section 11(2)(c) means that some act on the part of defendant must be a part of cause of action.

Clause c of sub Section 2 of Section 11 has provided that each and every fact pleaded by the respondent in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the courts territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ONGC case 1994 AIR SCW 3287 held that facts 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 territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.

3. Applying the ratio to the present case, we observed that the servicing branch of OP is located at Pitam Pura, New Delhi and from this office, the repudiation letter dated 24.02.2017 was issued by OP to the complainant with reference to theft claim No. 02080820271175A in policy No. 0186122969 with respect to vehicle No. DL-14-SC-7471.

 Undisputedly, therefore, the address of OP does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum and falls within jurisdiction of DCDRF- V and therefore the case is squarely covered by the judgment of Zila Parishad Vs Shanti Devi AIR 1955 All.590 (FB) and C.P. Agencies (supra) judgment whereby it was held that some act on the part of defendant must be a part of cause of action and anyone or more of bundle of facts should give rise to cause of action. None of the conditions of Section 11 (2)(a),(b) or(c) are fulfilled in the present case.

4. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as non maintainable in view of no cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and dismiss the complaint as non-maintainable with liberty to the complainant to file the complaint at appropriate Forum.  
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6. File be consigned to record room.
7. Announced on  24.01.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member