STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

^{Sh. Keshav Datt Sreedhar S/o late Sh. Brahm Datt, aged 54 years, resident of H.No.1105, Sector -2, Panchkula.}

 ……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

^{1]   M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited having its registered office at ECE House, 28 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized representative.}

^{2]   M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited having its branch office at SCO No.120-122, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its authorized representative.}

^{…Respondents/Opposite Parties.}

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:

Argued by:

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

^2.                

^3.                

^4.                 

^5.                 

^6.                

^7.                

^8.                

^9.                

^10.              

^11.              

^{12.              Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the Apex Court held as under;}

 ^“4.         

^{XXX                           8.} 

^{13.              , clearly goes to reveal that the policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala; the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Commission, at Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above.} 

^{14.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is disposed of, in the manner, that the complaint, in original, is ordered to be returned to the appellant/complainant, alongwith the documents, attached therewith, after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate Consumer Forum/Commission having the requisite territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).}

^15.              

^16.              

^Pronounced.

^{March 21, 2014.}

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.62 of 2014)

Argued by:

Dated the 21^st

ORDER

Ad