UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. S. BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Opposite Party before the State Commission, against the order dtd. 13/7/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, Tamil Nadu (for short "the State Commission") in MP No.188 of 2016 in CC No.130/2016 whereby the preliminary objection of the APPELLANT, that the State Commission did not have the territorial jurisdiction, was dismissed.

(2.) The Complainant in his Complaint has clearly mentioned that the accident had taken place at Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. About the accident, the police was informed and a certificate of police inspector of Cuddalore was also filed by the Complainant along with the Complaint. In the Complaint, the Complainant had contended that since the accident had taken place at Cuddalore, the State Commission had the territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the Complainant/ Respondent was having an insurance policy and immediately after the accident, the claim had been filed and investigator was appointed by the Appellant. During his investigation, the surveyor also had stated that the accident had taken place at the shore near harbour at Cuddalore. Therefore, the fact that part of cause of action had arisen at Cuddalore is an admitted fact. Since the part of cause of action had arisen in Cuddalore under Sec. 17(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission had the territorial jurisdiction.