NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SONIC SURGICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.3.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby appellant/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 4,00,278/- with interest @ 10% per annum and cost to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are these. Respondent which has been dealing in the sale of various types of surgical items at Ambala Cantt., took a policy for Rs. 10 lakhs in respect of the stocks kept in shop and godown from the appellant and the policy was valid upto 5.8.1999. Jammu & Kashmir Bank - branch at Ambala Cantt. had sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 10.5 lakhs to the respondent and the stocks kept in shop and godown was hypotheticated with the bank towards security. It is alleged that in the night intervening 13/14.2.1999 around 10 p.m., fire broke in the godown of respondent and entire stocks lying there was destroyed. DD No. 11 dated 15.11.1999 regarding incident was recorded by PS Amba Cantt. On being intimated about the incident, the appellant appointed M/s. Duggal Gupta and Associates, Surveyors and Loss Assessors as Surveyor to assess the loss and the Surveyor after spot inspection submitted the report dated 25.5.1999. Respondent lodged claim for Rs. 12,24,517/- but the appellant offered amount of Rs. 12 lakhs which the repondent received under protest. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed complaint against the appellant. In the written version by way of preliminary objection, the appellant alleged that State Commission, Union Territory did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. On merits, taking of policy for Rs. 10 lakhs and its being valid upto 5.8.1999 was not denied. It was also not denied that appellant appointed a Surveyor who submitted the report dated 25.5.1999. However, it was stated that Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,99,752/- and the respondent accepted amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards full and final settlement of its claim. Liability to pay the claimed amount was emphatically denied.

(3.) Main thrust of argument advanced by Shri Yogesh Malhotra for appellant was that no part of cause of action to file complaint had accrued within the jurisdiction of State Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh and mere dealing with the respondent's claim by the regional office of appellant at Chandigarh would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the said Commission. Reliance was placed on the decision in Indian Airlines Corporation & Ors. v. Consumer Education & Research Society, Ahmedabad & Anr., II (1991) CPJ 686 (NC). Ratio of this decision is that a State Commission cannot exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim where no part of cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, merely because the corporation has branch office within the territory of that State Commission. Unamended Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) which deals with the jurisdiction of District Forum and is material, states :