O R D E R Sri.K.Vijayakumaran, President. (2) This is an application filed by the opposite party / petitioner challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint. According to the petition the complainant’s son deceased Sajeendran has obtained insurance policy from the branch office of second opposite party at Ernakulam and the claim was reported before the second opposite party who finally repudiated the claim. It is the case of the petitioner that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain in this complaint. The complainant / respondent has not filed objection. Heard both sides. It is not disputed that the deceased Sajeendran has taken insurance policy from second opposite party at Ernakulam. From the averments in the complainant and from the documents such as postmortem report, FIR etc the deceased died at Ernakulam. The (3) claim was preferred before opposite party 2 who repudiated the claim is also not disputed. The Learned Counsel for petitioner would argue that no part of cause of action has taken place in opposite party 1 branch which situates within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore this Forum cannot entertain this complaint. It is further argued that the existence of a branch office will not confer jurisdiction unless some part of cause of action has taken place in that branch office. He would canvass the point that the expression branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen relying on the decision of Apex Court reported in 2009 (4) KLT SN 56 (Case No.50) wherein it was held “ if the contention of the learned counsel for appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala then to the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance
Company situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion the (4) expression branch office in the amended Sec 17 (2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arised”. The expression branch office in Sec II (2) (b) cannot have a different meaning. Hence in the light of the decision of Apex Court referred to above we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction of entertain this complaint. In the result, the petition is allowed. Return the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the proper Forum having territorial jurisdiction within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 30th day of October 2010. K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/- R.Vijayakumar :Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing: 26.10.09. Date of Order: 30.10.2010. (5) INDEX
List of documents 1. Policy issued by the 2nd opposite party on 12.12.2006. 2. Letter dtd: 31.03.2009 issued by the 2nd opposite stating that the file is closed as no claim. 3.copy of the FIR in Crime No.680/08 dtd:28.05.08 of Ernakulam North Police Station. | 
