STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 125 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 11.04.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 16/06/2014 |
Fore School of Management, B-18, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110016, through its Director
……Appellant/Opposite Party
V e r s u s
V.K.Khanna S/o Sh. J.P. Khanna, R/o Flat No.53, Young Dwellers’ Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
order dated 05.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-
“In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.18,875/- (Rs.26000.00 – Rs.7125/-) to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- to the complainant for causing him mental and physical harassment, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.
This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.18,875/- plus Rs.7000/- as compensation along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.6.2013 till realization, besides paying litigation cost, as aforesaid.”
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. favoring Fore School of Management, New Delhi, were issued by the said Branch, on 18.04.2009, by debiting to the Current Account No.65012145098 of Shri V.K. Khanna. He further submitted that, according to this certificate, these drafts were made payable at the Service Branch of State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, as per the record of the said Branch. He further submitted that no cause of action, whatsoever, took place at Chandigarh, and, as such, the District Forum at Chandigarh, had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that though such an objection was taken by the Opposite Party, in its written version, yet the same was not even touched, what to speak to dealing with the same, by the District Forum. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid is liable to be set aside.
10.
11. While interpreting the provisions of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which are para-materia to Section 11 of the Act, in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the Apex Court held as under;
“4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.
XXX XXX XXX
8. Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too 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 is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity [vide G.P Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].”
12. The perusal of the facts of Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), clearly goes to reveal that the Policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala; the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. In Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. The District Forum was, thus, wrong in usurping the territorial Jurisdiction, which did not vest in it, and deciding the complaint, on merits. The complaint is liable to be returned to the complainant/respondent, for presentation before the proper Forum, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with no order as to costs. The complaint, in original, is ordered to be returned to the respondent/complainant, alongwith the documents, attached therewith, by the District Forum, after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint), on merits.
14.
15.
Pronounced.
16/06/2014
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(DEV RAJ)
MEMBER
Rg
