MANOJ KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Forum, Bathinda dismissed the complaint on October 24, 1997 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction that Manoj Kumar, complaint is in appeal. The facts are not required to be noticed in detail as the question of law can otherwise be decided. Suffice it to say that Major Kumar had got an insurance policy from 'national Insurance Company in respect of his truck No. RJ-13-G- 2233 on September 27, 1995 for a period of one year. The policy was taken from Branch Office of the Insurance Company at Malout. The aforesaid truck was involved in an accident, which led the complainant to make a claim regarding damages caused to the truck to the tune of Rs.90,439.18p. The Insurance Company is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.59,258/- after making certain deductions. The District Forum without issuing notice to the opposite party disposed of the complaint as above observing that cause of action had accrued at Malout from where policy was taken and the National Insurance Company was also impleaded through Branch Officer Malout. Hence District Forum, Bathinda could not entertain the complaint. The approach of. the District Forum while determining the question of jurisdiction is not correct. Sec.11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act is as under : " (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 works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. "

(2.) Simple reading of the provisions aforesaid would show that the District Forum could entertain the complaint against the opposite party, who was having its head office or branch office within its jurisdiction. The District Forum could also entertain the complaint if cause of action or part thereof had accrued within its jurisdiction. In the present case it is admitted that National Insurance Company is having a branch office at Bathinda. Thus against the Insurance Company the complaint could be filed before the District Forum, Bathinda, even when occurrence of any cause of action within its territorial jurisdiction as contemplated under Sub-section (c) referred to above. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) referred to above are independent and they are not co-dependent. Since the accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Bathinda on August 5, 1996, the cause of action to the complainant accrued there, on that account also Clause (c) referred to above would be attracted and District Forum would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum for decision according to law on merits. Parties present are directed to appear before the District Forum, Bathinda on November 23,1998. District Forum's record alongwith a copy of the order be sent there promptly. Order set aside.