HARINDER KUMAR HARI vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd

VIDE this order, two Appeals No. 472 of 1997 and 473 of 1997 are being disposed of. Parties impleaded are common and the questions arising therein are also common. Main judgment is prepared in Appeal No. 472 of 1997. District Forum vide order dated January 10,1997 held that the Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complainant the complainant could pursue his remedy in any other Court/Forum, if so advised. Hence this appeal by the complainant, Harinder Kumar Hari.

HARINDER Kumar Hari purchased Matador vehicle No. PUC 4686 under arrangement of loan taken from Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar. The vehicle was insured by the banker through New India Assurance Company - the opposite party. In the two complaints filed by him, he claimed Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5.000/- respectively from the Insurance Company. The claims were repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the aforesaid vehicle was being used as taxi. Hence the complainant filed two complaints under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum, Jalandhar. On perusal of the complaints, the impugned orders were passed by the District Forum that since cause of action or part thereof had not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, the complaint could not be entertained. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that though the insurance policy was purchased from the branch office of the Insurance Company at Phagwara, the Insurance Company is also having branch office at Jalandhar, doing the same business and thus. District Forum, Jalandhar was competent to entertain the complaint and dispose it of on merits. New India Insurance Company is having a branch office at Jalandhar doing the same business is not disputed. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under: "11(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (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 (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, 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 (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises".

The aforesaid provision is slightly different from the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Consumer Protection Act is a social piece of legislation and it is to be interpreted in a manner that object of the Act is achieved i.e. to protect the rights of the consumers. Sub-clause (b) of Section 11 (2) referred to above widens the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum in respect of Companies whose Branch Offices are also situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the FORA to enable them to entertain the complaints against such Companies. All the three Clauses (a), (b) and (c) as reproduced above are independent and if the case falls under any one of them, the District Forum of that particular place will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. If the case is covered under either Clause (a) or (b), it is not necessary that cause of action or part thereof should also have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of such a Forum. The view expressed by the District Forum is not tenable in law. The orders are set aside, while accepting the appeals. The cases are sent back to the District Forum. The Forum will dispose of the complaints on merits according to law. Parties are directed to appear there on April 27,1998. Appeal accepted.