Delhi

East Delhi

CC/624/2022

SURENDER KUMAR JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INS. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH PASSI & PAYAL GUPTA

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

CC No.        624/2022 

Date:-         14.02.2023 

Present:      Sh. Ashish Pasi Counsel for Complainant

Arguments on the objections were heard earlier and he was directed to clarify the legal proposition.  Today, he has relied upon the provision of Section 34 Clause 2 which reads as under: 

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,

 

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

 

2. 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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or

 

3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, or

 

4.  the complainant resides or personally works for gain. 

 

It is submitted case that the complainant is residing in Ashok Vihar, Phase 3, Delhi and the insurance policy has been issued from Catholic Centre 64, Armenian Street, Chennai.  In the complaint it is submitted that the regional office of OP is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and as such this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present case.   

Admittedly, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  The law is now well settled and in M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004, it was inter alia held as follows:    

Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. 

 

In view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Commission is of the opinion that the Section 34 (2) as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for complainant is of no help to the complainant and as such the petition is not maintainable before this Commission.       

 

The Complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant with liberty to file in the Commission of appropriate jurisdiction. 

 

Photocopy of the complaint be kept and original be returned to the complainant. 

 

Copy of this Order be given to the Complainant. 

 

File be consigned to Record Room.