R.B. Jagdish Prasad and Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Insurance Company. The State Commission dealt with the complaint at the admission stage itself and held that Delhi State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
R.B. Jagdish Prasad and Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Insurance Company. The State Commission dealt with the complaint at the admission stage itself and held that Delhi State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
R.B. Jagdish Prasad and Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, Insurance Company. The State Commission dealt with the complaint at the admission stage itself and held that Delhi State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
from Muzaffarnagar Branch of the Equivalent Citation: Respondent Insurance Company and IV(2008)CPJ159(NC) since the claim was filed by the Appellant in Delhi State Commission on NATIONAL CONSUMER the premises that the Opposite Party's DISPUTES REDRESSAL Head Office is located in Demi. In our COMMISSION view, keeping in view the provision of NEW DELHI Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, State Commission rightly did Decided On: 22.07.2008 not entertain the complaint for not having territorial jurisdiction. Learned Appellants: R.B. Jagdish Prasad and Counsel for the Appellant drew our Co. attention to Section 11 of the Consumer Vs. Protection Act, 1986, which reads as Respondent: Oriental Insurance Co. under: Ltd. 11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum: Hon'ble Judges: S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member) and (1) Subject to the other provisions of this B.K. Taimni, Member Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, Subject: Consumer where the value of the gods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed Disposition: [does not exceed rupees twenty lakh], Appeal dismissed (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a ORDER District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: B.K. Taimni, Member (a) The opposite party or each of the 1. Appellant was the complainant before opposite parties, where there are more the State Commission, where he had than one, at the time of the institutions of filed a complaint alleging deficiency in the complaint, actually and voluntarily service on the part of the respondent, resides or [carries on business or has a Insurance Company. branch office or] personally works for gain, or 2. The State Commission dealt with the complaint at the admission stage itself (b) Any of the opposite parties, where and held that Delhi State Commission there are more than one, at the time of has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the institution of the complaint, actually the case. It is not in dispute that the and voluntarily resides or [carries on Appellant/Complainant had a cold- business or has a branch office], or storage for which he had obstained a personally works for gain, provided that Special Perils Policy for Rs. 2.6 crores in such case either the permission of the and this cold-storage is located at 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
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises.
3. The intent of the law was that
everything should not really be centred in the Head Office and the person should be able to institute a complaint wherever there is a Branch Office of the opposite party organization. Reverse is not true, i.e. if the whole cause of action arose in Muzaffarnagar and both the parties are located in Muzaffarnagar, the complaint could not have been filed in Delhi because the Head Office of the Respondent Insurance Company is located in Delhi. This will be defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Perhaps this has been done to avoid going to Lucknow in whose pecuniary jurisdiction, it would have fallen. The claim in this case is of Rs. 20,91,000. It is for the appellant to consider reducing the claim to less than Rs. 20 lakh and file the complaint before the District Forum at Muzaffarnagar or file complaint before the U.P. State Commission at Lucknow.