ORDER CC-600-2010, Dt. 04.08.2010<br /> Stage : For order<br /> Complainant: Sri. B.S.S.<br /> O.P. : <br /> <br /> 1. Case called out. The complainant and the advocate are absent. Today the matter is posted for hearing finally regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complaint. Since, the complainant and the advocate are absent and the matter is posted for hearing finally, we perused the records.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in Insurance Service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is situated at Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 3. Now, we have to consider whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint?<br /> <br /> 4. For the following reasons our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Entire facts alleged in the complaint needs no mention. It is suffice to note that, according to the complainant, his lorry KA-09/A 2883 was insured with the opposite party, which met with an accident and was damaged. The claim submitted has been repudiated by the opposite party. Hence, compensation is claimed.<br /> <br /> 6. As provided Under Section 11(2), complaint shall be instituted in the District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or the cause of action arose. In the case on hand, the opposite party is situated at Bangalore, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.<br /> <br /> 7. It is true, as provided in 11(A)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, complaint also can be instituted, where the opposite party has Branch office. But in the case on hand, though in the case title, there is mention that the opposite party has Branch Office at Mysore, the real opposite party shown in the cause title of the complaint is situated at Bangalore. Even, otherwise, as could be seen from the records, the complainant as claimed, had obtained Insurance Policy from the opposite party situated at Bangalore and further, he had submitted claim with the opposite party at Bangalore, which is repudiated it. Hence, cause of action arose at Bangalore. The Branch Office situated at Mysore is nothing to do with the said cause of action, since, the said Branch office has not issued any Insurance Policy to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. In the 9th paragraph of the complaint, further it is alleged that, accident is occurred within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, this Forum has jurisdiction. The place of accident is nothing to do in respect of the present complaint regarding claim of damage by the complainant against the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 9. Considering the facts and material on record, for the reasons noted above, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is returned to the complainant, for presentation before the Forum having jurisdiction to entertain and try the same in accordance with law.<br />