Section 17. of the consumer protection Act
Prateek
(Querist) 14 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
Respectable Sir/ madam,
This query regarding Section 17. of the consumer protection Act. read with Section 2 of the same Act.
Sec. 17 defines the jurisdiction of the State Commission and Section 11 of the same act defines the jurisdiction of the District Commission as follows:
(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 2[carries on business or has a branch office, or] personally works for gain; or
(b) Any of the opposite parties where there are more then one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 2[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 2[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.
Section 2 sub part (aa) of the same act gives the definition of branch office as follows:
2[(aa) "Branch office" means -
(i) Any establishment described as a branch by the opposite party; or
(ii) Any establishment carrying on either the same or substantially the same activity as that carried on by the head office of the establishment;
I would like to ask that if a truck is insured by the lucknow branch of the Insurance Company and the truck meets with an accident in Himachal Pradesh but the truck was hypothecated in Dehradun and also the the amount for the insurance was paid at Dehradun, doesn't a part of the cause of action arise in Dehradun. I would also like to know that when Sec. 2(aa) has clearly defined the meaning of "Branch Office" then Sec 17. read with Sec. 2 would imply that the State Commission of Uttarakhand at Dehradun has the Territorial Jurisdiction to give its views in this case.
Waiting for your opinion.
Yours Sincerely,
Prateek Handa
Student,
Law College Dehradun
Mob: 9027277736
Dated: 14/10/2010
s.subramanian
(Expert) 14 October 2010
Since a part of the cause of action has arisen in Dehradun,you can file it in Dehradun. it is legal and valid.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 14 October 2010
What is the place of residence of the actual owner of the Truck?
R.Ranganathan
(Expert) 14 October 2010
I agree with the expert Mr. Subramanian. But I would like to know why you are approaching consumer court instead accident claims tribunal since the truck was involved in an accident.
pawan sharma
(Expert) 14 October 2010
you may approach to MACT fot same.
according to your Q in C.P.Act Party cause of action arise at DD.
Prateek
(Querist) 14 October 2010
Thank you every one for your valuable advice. Actually no one got hurt so i don't think i can approach MACT. Only the truck got damaged completely and the surveyor showed "Total Loss". I had lodged a complaint in the Uttarakhad State Consumer Forum in Dehradun but the complaint was dismissed on Preliminary Objection of Territorial Jurisdiction. Hon'ble Forum said that it does not have jurisdiction for the above mentioned case. Hon'ble Forum took this opinion just like a recent case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Co. same opition was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme court. The Hon'ble Supreme court also mentioned that Branch Office means that the branch office where the cause of action takes place. According to me this view is totally against the consumers. I have attached the judgment with this message.
Waiting for your valuable comments....
Thank you once again everyone.
Prateek
(Querist) 14 October 2010
@ Advocate. Arunagiri :
Sir the owner of the truck is the resident of Dehradun itself.
Khaleel Ahmed
(Expert) 20 October 2010
I agree with Mr. Subramanian.
Prateek
(Querist) 20 October 2010
Sir i agree with your statements but do you have any Judgment to support your views??
Prateek
(Querist) 24 October 2010
which judgment do you have sir?
Hemant Agarwal
(Expert) 07 September 2014
CONTRADICTORY:
1. truck is insured by the lucknow branch
2. truck meets with an accident in Himachal Pradesh
3. truck was hypothecated in Dehradun
4. amount for the insurance was paid at Dehradun
- Point no. 1 and 4, contradicts each other.
- FIR & Survey report of accident in Himachal Pradesh, will be applicable.
QUESTION: IF the insurance amount is paid via "Money Transfer" from USA (which is permissible), will USA be the Territorial Jurisdiction for filing Complaint under CPAct.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
READ ARTICLES ON: http://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar
