Heard learned counsel for the complainant.  None appears for the respondent.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        Learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that complainant-appellant being the owner of OPEL CORSA car bearing Regn.No.OR-02-AB-6939 has purchased a policy from opposite party no.2  under comprehensive policy covering the period from 7.6.2004 to 6.6.2005. He further submitted that on 21.9.2004, the vehicle met with an accident and the matter was informed to the insurer who deputed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Since the claim was not settled the complaint was filed before the learned District Forum, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. He also submitted that opposite party took the plea that before the concerned District Forum, the complaint is not maintainable. Because there was already cause of action, complaint should be filed before the Consumer Commission, Baripada. Against that order of the learned District Forum, appeal has been filed before this Commission being First Appeal No. 485 of 2014. He also submitted that the Surveyor has computed the loss at Rs. 1,71,503/-, the insurer only paid Rs. 60,000/- for repairing of the vehicle.

4.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum without considering the facts and law, dismissed the complaint. According to him, learned District Forum  has only dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation. He submitted that earlier order of the learned District Forum, Baripada was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. But again the case is filed before the learned District Forum, Khurda. Once territorial jurisdiction issue is raised, therefore, complaint is filed before the learned District Forum, Khurda. So no question of res judicata will come there.

         Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

5.        Considered the submissions, perused DFR including the impugned order.

6.        It is admitted fact that during the currency of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident and complaint case was filed before the learned District Forum,Mayurbhanj, Baripada being C.D.No. 104 of 2006 and that learned District Forum dismissed the complaint stating that he has no jurisdiction. It is also admitted fact that the order is challenged before this Commission. But the complainant being abide by the decision of the learned District Forum, Baripada, filed the complaint petition before the learned District Forum, Khurda.

7.        The only question to be decided whether the learned District Forum Khurda can decide the issue before it which has been decided by the learned District Forum, Mayurbhanj, Baripada.  As per Section 11 of the CPC, an issue already decided finally by competent court, cannot be decided again on the same issue by the subsequent court or the Forum. In the instant case, learned Forum Baripada has observed that he has no territorial jurisdiction to decide. When it has not decided the issue finally, the question of application of res judicata as raised by the learned District Forum does not arise. Moreover, there is another issue raised before the learned District Commission that it is barred by limitation. That point was not addressed by the learned District Commission, Khurda. It is only submitted that the case is not maintainable in view of the fact that learned District Forum, Baripada had no jurisdiction. In this regard, we do not agree with the observation because under the Consumer Protection Act, the concerned Forum should have asked the party to file limitation petition with regard to delay in filing the complaint. In stead of doing so, at the final stage, learned District Forum, Khurda stated that it is barred by limitation is against the settled law. Rather it requires close scrutiny.

8.        In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that learned District Forum has not decided the case properly for which it requires fresh disposal for consideration of the territorial jurisdiction  independently and the case on merit after asking the complainant to file limitation petition which is to be considered by learned District Forum. Therefore, we hereby allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum, Khurda to hear both the parties on merit and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum, Khurda on 10.7.2023 for hearing.  

9.        The Appeal  is accordingly disposed of.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.