IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 194/09 DATED 15.09.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant 1. President, Karnataka Consumer’s Forum (R), 93, 9th Cross, Gokulam 1st Stage, Mysore-570002.<br /> 2. R.G.Rao, No.41, Sudha Sadan, 13th Cross, 6th Main, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003.<br /> (By Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Chief General Manager, <br /> United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Registered Head Office, 24, White Road, <br /> Chennai-600014.<br /> 2. Dr.Sreekanth, Medical officer,<br /> E Medi Tek Solutions Ltd., 36/1, <br /> 1st Floor, Dickenson Road, <br /> Bangalore-560042.<br /> 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., 89/1, 2nd Floor, <br /> 11th Cross, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003.<br /> (O.P.1 and O.P.2 – EXPARTE and <br /> By Sri.Jaganath Suresh Kumar, Advocate for O.P.3) <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 04.06.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 29.06.2009<br /> Date of order : 15.09.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> Order on territorial jurisdiction issue /point<br /> <br /> 1. The relevant facts are that, the complainants have filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to declare the policy of networking of hospitals by second opposite party as infringement of Right of consumer to avail service of their choice and to direct to stop the Unfair Trade Practice, further to declare that the letter dated 06.03.2009 at Annexure-N as violative of terms and conditions of the policy bond issued to second complainant amounting not only to deficiency in service, but also Unfair Trade Practice, and to direct the second opposite party to settle the claim forthwith in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the policy bond issued to the insured, taking the sum assured and to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,71,950/- with punitive interest at the rate of 18% p.a., to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the second complainant for mental tension and other injuries, to pay punitive damage of Rs.10,000/- to the second complainant and Rs.10,000,00/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.10,000/- to the first complainant and Rs.5,000/- to the second complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the first complainant is a voluntary consumer organization registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is working for consumer cause. It has filed many complaints on behalf of large number of consumer, who are not conveniently identifiable who are aggrieved by Unfair Trade Practices of manufacturers, traders and service organizations. The present complaint is one such complaint filed not only on behalf of second complainant, but also large number of consumers from whom the opposite parties have enriched themselves by adopting Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service in not rendering services as required under the regulations.<br /> <br /> Further, it is alleged that, first complainant came across one newspaper report published in a Kannada Daily Vijaya Karnataka dated 07.03.2009 about the Unfair Trade practiced of Health insurers repudiating the claim of insured undergoing joint transplantation surgeries. Having seen the flimsy grounds by third party administrators, the first complainant was exploring the possibility of rectifying this malady by application of provisions of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> 3. At this point of time, the second complainant approached the newly started consumer guidance centre of the first complainant at Mysore seeking guidance for getting his health insurance claim reimbursed. On perusal of the documents available with the second opposite party, it was noticed that he is senior citizen and had taken health insurance policy from third opposite party at Sampige Road, Bangalore. This was a gold scheme policy covering the health insurance for the second complainant and his wife. The policy was renewal of previous policy. The premium was paid. The third opposite party had issued policy booklet containing all the details and terms and conditions. It is at Annexure-B. Name of second opposite party as third party administrator at Gurgoan is mentioned in Annexure-B. The latest insurance policy of the second complainant was Rs.2,00,000/-. No claim bonus was accrued to the second complainant and his wife. In the policy issued for subsequent period, said bonus has been deleted and only little amount is mentioned as no claim discount, as per Annexure-B1. <br /> <br /> 4. Wife of the second complainant was suffering in her knee several years. The condition became intolerable. She consulted specialists at Apollo Hospital, Bangalore. On their advice, she underwent total knee replacement surgery. For that, she was admitted in hospital. The total expenditure incurred was Rs.3,87,193/-. Prior to getting admitted, the second complainant approached the second opposite party and informed about admission and surgery. But, the second opposite party informed the second complainant that since Apollo Hospital was not in their network, the second complainant has to make the payment himself and submit the bill for reimbursement after getting discharged. After his wife was discharged, the second complainant submitted claim with relevant bill. The second opposite party sent a cheque for Rs.70,000/- only against Rs.3,96,000/-, the claim. The second complainant wrote to the second opposite party, stating that the policy was for Rs.2,00,000/-, but received only Rs.70,000/- and the cheque was accepted under protest. The second opposite party did not pay the balance. Further, there were correspondences, but no response.<br /> <br /> 5. The first opposite party sent reply justifying the action of the second opposite party, it is stated that the claim has been made for major surgery. The policy condition normally restricts if reimbursement for major surgery to 70% of the sum assured. Hence, the action is justified. Also, it is alleged that the complaint is lodged not only for their deficiency in service and service rendered to the second complainant, but, also Unfair Trade Practice adopted by them affecting large number of consumers, who are not conveniently identifiable spread over the territory covered by the branches of the first opposite party including Mysore District within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 6. First and second opposite parties despite due service, have remained absent.<br /> <br /> 7. The third opposite party has filed version, stating that the opposite party is a third party administrator regulated under ‘The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority”. It is independent body. It is empowered to deal with all health insurance services. It handles all the claims arising out of mediclam policies. It consists of team of doctors well versed in medical science, they scrutinize every mediclaim and decide it. They pay the claim to the hospital and later get the same reimbursed from third opposite party. The second complainant was aware of the same and had approached the second opposite party for the claim. This opposite party has no authority to process mediclaim. The second opposite party settled the claim of the second complainant of Rs.70,000- through a cheque dated 17.01.2009. It was on the basis of summary issued by the Apollo Hospital. Also, it was on the basis of the condition of the policy. The discharge summary reveals that the patient was suffering from knee problem since for the last 5 years. The policy pertains to the year 2003 to 2004 was Rs.1,00,000/-. The liability for all major surgery is 70% of the sum assured. It is contend that total knee replacement surgery is a major surgery. The sum assured was with effect from 17th April 2008. The patient underwent surgery on 05.12.2008 and 08.12.2008, after increasing the sum assured. Patient was suffering from the problem for the last 5 years before surgery. Hence, for the first two years from the date of enhancement of the insured, the policy holder will not entitle for the enhanced amount. Also, it is contend that as per latest policy condition, the policy holder entitled to no claim discount at 5% for every claim free years subject to maximum of 25%. Hence, discount of Rs.3,668.25 was payable. Accordingly, that has been paid. Further, it is contended that the complaint is hit by arbitration clause. The complaint is not maintainable. Also, it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The claims are exorbitant and fanciful. Further, it is contended that the first complainant cannot file the complaint in his name against the opposite party, as there is no privity of contract. Other allegations are specifically denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. In support of the claim made in the complaint, both the complainants have filed their affidavit and also produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the third opposite party, authorized officer has filed his affidavit. For third opposite party also certain documents are produced. We had heard the arguments and had posted the matter for orders.<br /> <br /> 9. On going through the records, it was noticed that all the opposite parties are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and further, cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Taking into consideration of this and other circumstances, amongst other points, the Forum raised an issue or point, as to whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint? In this regard, we have heard further.<br /> <br /> 10. Before deciding the matter on merits, now point or issue that arose for our consideration is:<br /> Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint?<br /> <br /> 11. For the following reasons, our finding is in negative<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 12. Sub Section 2 of section 11 of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986 deals with jurisdiction of the Forum. It reads as under:-<br /> “A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – <br /> (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business, or has a branch office or) personally works for gain; or<br /> (b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain:<br /> PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or<br /> (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”<br /> <br /> 13. At the outset, for the complainants it was submitted that when the Forum has once admitted the complaint, it cannot go back and review the order as to the maintainability of the complaint and if it is done, it is an absurdity. <br /> <br /> 14. It is submitted for the complainants, that the opposite parties have not taken a contention regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, which amounts to waiver and hence, the complaint can be proceeded with. It is true, that the third opposite party in the version has not specifically contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. However, in 16th paragraph of the version, a general contention is taken that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Even otherwise, only because the opposite party has not taken a contention regarding jurisdiction of the Court or Forum, the Court or Forum blindly cannot decide the case even if it has no jurisdiction. Sometimes, opposite party may for various reasons, which need not be noted here, may not take a contention that the Court or Forum has no jurisdiction. <br /> <br /> 15. Also, it is submitted that since the Forum has admitted the complaint, it cannot be go back and consider the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction. First of all, as could be seen from the order sheet of the case, the Forum has not decided or given a finding, that this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction. Merely because, complaint has been admitted and the Forum has ordered to issue notice to the opposite parties, that does not mean that the Forum has given a finding that it has got territorial jurisdiction. With reference to section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was submitted for the complainants that since the other side did not take objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, it amounts to waiver. As noted above, even if a party fails to take objection regarding jurisdiction, there is no bar, as to the powers of the Court or Forum to consider the point since it goes to the root of the matter, particularly order or judgement passed without jurisdiction, sometimes may become nullity. It is well-settled that the Court or Forum shall have to pas judgement or order or decree, that can be executed and no order or decree could be passed, which cannot be executed. Hence, only because specific defense is not taken regarding territorial jurisdiction that does not mean that this Forum has no power at all to consider that point. <br /> <br /> 16. Suppose that from the averments made in the plaint or complaint, it is not made out that it is time barred, but on appearance of the defendant or the opposite party, certain facts or documents are produced, which makes beyond doubt that the plaint or complaint is time barred. Under such circumstance, can it be said that since initially plaint or complaint was admitted and later clearly it was found time barred, the Court or Forum has no jurisdiction at all to deal with that point? Further, take an example that in the plaint or complaint dismissal of earlier case between the same parties on the same set of facts or cause of action was not mentioned, but on appearance of the opposite party, that was brought to the notice of the Court or Forum, then can it be said that the Court or Forum having once admitted the plaint or complaint cannot consider the point of maintainability?<br /> <br /> 17. There cannot be any dispute that to certain extent whenever necessary, we have to adopt and follow various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under order 7 Rule 10 CPC, it is provided that at any stage of the suit, the complaint can be returned. Hence, even at this stage, if it is found that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, the complaint can be returned. As regards, stage of taking objection about jurisdiction, what is provided under section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by the Appellate or Revisional Court, unless that was taken in the Court at the fist instance. Hence, if in the Court at first instance, objection as to the place of suing was not taken then only in the appellate or revisional Court, party is not allowed to take such contention. Now, matter is for consideration in the Forum at the first instance. Also, it was argued for the complainants that the Court cannot review its own order. At the cost of repetition, first of all no specific order has been passed at the time of admitting complaint, that this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is well-settled that for various reasons including for sufficient reason, judgement or order can be reviewed. Also, it was submitted for the complainants, that if the Forum proceeds to considering the jurisdiction point, at this stage, it is an absurdity. Dictionary meaning of “Absurdity” is opposed to reason or ridiculous. But, for the reasons referred to here before, at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that consideration of the jurisdiction point or issue, at this stage, is an absurdity. On the other hand without jurisdiction if an order or judgement is passed, it is an illegality.<br /> <br /> 18. Order of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.1734/2004 is referred to for the complainants, wherein, in the second paragfraph on 5th page, it is observed that a point regarding maintainability of the complaint was raised and same cannot be allowed to be raised afresh at that stage. Firstly, the point regarding maintainability of the complaint was in regard to, whether the complainant was a ‘Consumer’ and moreover in that case, in fact before the District Forum it was conceded by the opposite party that the complainant was ‘Consumer’ and in view of those facts, it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that “The petitioner was debarred from taking a position contrary to it at this stage”. Such are not the facts of the case on hand.<br /> <br /> 19. Further, it was argued that the question of jurisdiction shall have to be considered as preliminary issue. In this regard, the gist at para 195 of the book Supreme Court on Consumer Protection, Eastern Book Company Publication is referred. With reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is stated that the issue relating to jurisdiction has to be decided by the Forums first. So, far concerned to this preposition of law, absolutely there is no quarrel. For this reason itself, now first we are deciding the issue, as to jurisdiction of this Forum and all other points or issues on merits are not dealt with.<br /> <br /> 20. Before proceeding to consider the factual aspects of the case, so far concerned to jurisdiction, it is desirable to note the legal position so that in the light of the same, we can better appreciate the facts. <br /> <br /> 21. For the complainants, a ruling reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 is relied upon. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this ruling at paragraphs 2 and 3 has observed that “The intention of the legislation to enact the Act is to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers”. Also, it is further observed that the provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the ‘Consumer’ to achieve the purpose of enactment, as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. Judgement in Civil Appeal No.2253/1999 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is relied upon. It is held that the Act is enacted to better protect the interest of the ‘Consumer’. It is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect large number of consumers from exploitation. There cannot be any dispute on the law laid down in this rulings. <br /> <br /> 22. A ruling reported in I (2004) CLT 20 is referred to. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, has held that “the remedy there under is in addition to, not in derogation of other remedies available.” That is not the point before us. However, further in that ruling at paragraph 14, it is observed that the Act being beneficial legislation, receive the liberal construction.<br /> <br /> 23. An order of the Hon’ble National Commission dated 17.02.2009 in Revision Petition No.1734/2004 is relied upon for the complainants. In that case, maintainability of the complaint was an issue not on the ground that territorial jurisdiction, but whether the complainant was a ‘Consumer’ or otherwise.<br /> <br /> 24. As regards, the submission for the complainants that there should be liberal construction or that the Act is to protect the interest of the ‘Consumers’ etc., the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission in the next paragraph is sufficient answer and hence, is not feel it just to add anything more.<br /> <br /> 25. It is relevant to note the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in American Express Bank Ltd. and another Vs. Rajesh Gupta and others in Revision Petition No.34/1997 order dated 06.12.2009. Paragraph 10 of the judgement, which reads as under:<br /> “It was contended by Mr.Bhasin that the District Forum, Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta. The travelers cheques in question were purchased in Delhi, were lost in Delhi, claim for refund was made in Delhi with the Delhi Branch of the Bank, the matter was investigated by the Delhi Branch of the Bank, rejection of the claim was effected in Delhi by the Delhi Branch of the Bank. However, the claimant chose to file the complaint in Calcutta merely on the basis that the American Express Bank has a Branch at Calcutta. It is indisputable as a general proposition that a body corporate and its branches are not distinct and separate entities from each other and all other transactions entered into ostensibly with the branches are in legal reality transactions with the corporate body. However, it is also now generally agreed that in the case of a Bank which operates through its branches, the branches are regarded for many purposes as separate and distinct entities from the head office and from each other. In support of his arguments he relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Agenecia Commercial International Ltd. and others Vs. Custodian of the Branches of Banco Nactional UUltramarino 1982 (1) SCC 482, where in was held that<br /> “Now it is indisputable as a general proposition that a body corporate and its branches are not distinct and separate entitities from each other, that the branches constitute mere components through which the corporate entity expresses itself and that all transactions entered into ostensibly with the branches are in legal reality transactions with the corporate body, and it is with the corporate body that a person must deal directly. But it is also now generally agreed that in the case of a Bank which operates through its Branches, the Branches are regarded for many purposes as separate and distinct entitities from the Head Office and from each other”. <br /> <br /> 25 (A) In that case, as could be seen from the observations made in paragraph 14, on the point of jurisdiction, the two members of the State Commission had taken the view that the travelers cheques payable worldwide and there was no stipulation restricting the territorial jurisdiction. But, on the other hand, the minority view expressed by the President of the State Commission is that the District Forum at Calcutta had no jurisdiction as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Calcutta. In this context, he relied upon the judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahembabad, reported as 1994(2) CCC 925 (NS) : (1991) CPJ 686, wherein it was held as under:<br /> “The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide a speedy and … inexpensive remedy to consumers as an alternative to the remedy already available to them by way of institution of a suit in the appropriate civil court. It does not appear to us to have been intended by Parliament that while instituting a complaint against the Corporation which has its branches spread over all over India, a consumer should have the choice to file his complaint anywhere in the country irrespective of where the cause of action, arose merely for the reason that the Corporation may have a branch office functioning in the particular place where in complaint is instituted. If Section 11 of the Act were to be interpreted in the manner contended for by the respondents it would lead to anomalous situations which are not conducive to the speedy administration of redressal justice by the Forums. To take one extreme illustration, if in the case of a banking company (which is a corporation in the eye of law) in relation to a transaction which took place between a consumer and the branch of the Bank in Kanyakumari, the consumer was to be at liberty to institute his complaint in Srinagar where a bvranch of the same bank may be functioning all the records relating to transaction and witnesses who can be in position to speak about it would be at Kanyakumari while the trail of the complaint is to proceed at Srinagar. This would be most inappropriate and undesirable from the point of view of speedy dispensation of justice as also of avoidance of unnecessary harassment, expenditure and inconvenience to the parties. With due respect, we are unable to share the view expressed by the State Commission, Gujarat in its order aforecited that the object of Parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act was to confer such a choice on the consumers to institute the complaint at any place within the country according to their whims and fancies. In our opinion, it will be much more reasonable to assume that in respect of complaint instituted against a corporation Parliament intended that the Forum before which a complaint is instituted should have either the nexus or accrual of the cause of action within its territory or the location of the principal office of the corporation within its territory. We would, therefore, hold that unless one of these tests is satisfied the institution of the complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum whether it be a District Forum or State Commission will not be legal and the Forum cannot validity exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon such a complaint”. <br /> <br /> 25 (B) Ultimately, considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 15, it is observed that<br /> ‘In the light of statement of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India’s case, we have no hesitation in holding that District Forum, Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as no part of cause of action had arisen at Calcutta. The travelers cheques were purchased at Delhi; those were lost in Delhi; matter was reported to the police at Delhi; claim for refund of the amount was lodged with the Delhi Branch of Bank; the matter was investigated by the Delhi Branch of Bank and the claim was rejected by the Delhi Branch and communicated to the complainant at his business address at A-94, Sector-5, NOIDA (U.P.).”<br /> <br /> 26. One more order of the Hon’ble National Commission in Sunil Goel Vs. Indian Airlines in first appeal Nos. 175 and 180/1991 dated 27.02.1992, may be take a note of. In that case, Hon’ble National Commission has considered territorial jurisdiction, wherein the complainant had alleged that opposite party omitted to provide accommodation in the flight from Trivendrum to Delhi and the complaint was allowed by the Rajasthan State Commission on the ground that Indian Airlines has got office within the said State. But, the Hon’ble National Commission held that at Jayapur no cause of action arose and hence, the Rajasthan State Commission had no jurisdiction. On the same point, two more orders of the Hon’ble National Commission, in Hariyana Urban Development Authority Vs. Nithin Kumar in Revision Petition No.317/1994 dated 19.01.1995 and Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Patel Ramu Bai and another in F.A.No.60/1991 dated 10.12.1992, also, make it clear that where the opposite parties reside and cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, the Forum within whose jurisdiction there is branch office in which complaint is filed, has no jurisdiction to decide it.<br /> <br /> 27. Also, it is relevant to note that proviso to sub-section 2 section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that with permission of the Forum, complaint can be lodged, in case the opposite parties do not reside within its jurisdiction. In the case on hand, admittedly no such permission was sought by the complainants and this Forum has not granted any permission as provided therein.<br /> <br /> 28. Now, coming to considering the facts of the case on hand, absolutely there is no dispute that all that the opposite parties are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, that is, at Bangalore. Even, the second complainant is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Of course, that is not so relevant. However, considering the facts alleged in the complaint, the grievance of the second complainant is against the opposite parties and with reference to the same, the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, that is, at Bangalore. When these are the clear and prima-facie facts, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. It is vehemently argued for the complainant that, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, there are branch offices of the opposite parties. But, as against said branch office, no claim is made and there is no allegation against any particular branch situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in various decisions referred to here before, only because there are some branch or branches of the opposite parties within the jurisdiction of this Forum, will not confer jurisdiction over this Forum.<br /> <br /> 29. As could be seen from the complaint, material or main claim is that of the second complainant against the opposite parties. However, it appears that an attempt is made to contend that this Forum has got jurisdiction to decide the complaint alleging that the act of the opposite party amounts to Unfair and Restrictive Trade Practice. But, it is relevant to note that said allegation refers to the act of the opposite parties and against the opposite parties, consequently, admittedly all the opposite parties are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and further more, in respect of that allegation also, cause of action as alleged is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, merely because, a contention is taken in the complaint that the act of the opposite parties amounts to Unfair and Restrictive Trade Practice, under the circumstances, will not confer jurisdiction over this Forum.<br /> <br /> <br /> 30. For the reasons noted here before, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Accordingly, we pass the following order. <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is returned to the complainants as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide it.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th September 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />