NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PAVEL GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON order dated 1.10.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (to be referred as 'the UT Commission') in complaints bearing Nos. 69, 71 to 81 of 2006 and 83 to 86 of 2006 titled as "Pavel Garg (complainant) v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Opposite Party)" is in question in this batch of appeals. The chequered history and the background in which the aforesaid complaints came to be filed before the UT Commission and entertained and decided by it, by the impugned order, have caused some anguish to us.

(2.) THIS batch of appeals raises an important question of law about the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of consumer Fora in general and that of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in particular to entertain and try the consumer complaints in which no part of cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. In other words, the question is whether a consumer/complainant can be permitted to do 'Forum Shopping' or 'Forum Hopping' by filing consumer complaint in the State Commission of his choice.

(3.) THE relevant facts and circumstances leading to the complaint first before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (to be referred to as 'the Haryana State Commission') and then, before the UT Commission are that Pavel Garg (complainant) claiming to be the sole proprietor of M/s. Combitic Global is engaged in the business of export of pharmaceutical products. On 11.4.2002, the complainant had purchased an open Marine Insurance cover bearing cover note No. 004196 for a sum of Rs. 10 crore from the New India Assurance Company Limited covering pharmaceutical products duly packed on CIF basis from anywhere in India to anywhere in the world against all risks, and war and SRCC on the consignments sent by road/sea/air. On 3.5.2002, the complainant entered into an agreement with M/s. Paktiya Trading LLC, Bur Dubai, UAE (Intermediatory) to provide him with goods export orders. Through the said Intermediatory, the complainant received orders for supply of pharmaceutical products to M/s. "OOO" STROI -CONTROL, St. Petersburg, Russia on 4.11.2002 and 29.1.2003 and dispatched the pharmaceutical products to the said foreign buyer under 19 invoices, during 2.1.2003 to 7.2.2003, for a total amount of 11,35,578 US dollars. Out of the said invoices, 16 invoices (subject matter of the 16 complaints before the Haryana State Commission and then before the UT Commission) were to the tune of 10,27,454 US dollars. Rest of the invoices pertained to other consignments, which were the subject matter of other complaints. According to the complainant, on dispatch of the consignments, the Insurance Company was duly informed and the latter issued the requisite insurance certificates after receipt of the premium. The consignment was transported from Sonepat to Amritsar by road and at Amritsar, it was handed over to a multimodal transport company, viz., M/s. Seasky Cargo and Travel Pvt. Ltd. for final delivery at the consignee's place at St. Petersburg (Russia). It was alleged that though the consignment reached safely at the designated Port in Finland, the truckers covering the final road transportation from the said Port in Finland to St. Petersburg did not deliver the same at the consignee's warehouse at St. Petersburg. On receipt of this information, the complainant sent notices dated 14.5.2003 to multimodal transport company, M/s. Seasky Cargo and Travel Private Limited, New Delhi and Forwarder Transporter, Aleborg OY Vanha, Finland. The consignment remained untraced and, therefore, the complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company. Since the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim, complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company filed the complaints claiming a sum of 10,27,454 US dollars with interest and compensation.