Muzaffarnagar.

The Policy was issued

from Muzaffarnagar Branch of the
Equivalent Citation: Respondent Insurance Company and
IV(2008)CPJ159(NC) since the claim was filed by the
Appellant in Delhi State Commission on
NATIONAL CONSUMER the premises that the Opposite Party's
DISPUTES REDRESSAL Head Office is located in Demi. In our
COMMISSION view, keeping in view the provision of
NEW DELHI Section 11 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, State Commission rightly did
Decided On: 22.07.2008 not entertain the complaint for not
having territorial jurisdiction. Learned
Appellants: R.B. Jagdish Prasad and Counsel for the Appellant drew our
Co. attention to Section 11 of the Consumer
Vs. Protection Act, 1986, which reads as
Respondent: Oriental Insurance Co. under:
Ltd.
11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:
Hon'ble Judges:
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member) and (1) Subject to the other provisions of this
B.K. Taimni, Member Act, the District Forum shall have
jurisdiction to entertain complaints,
Subject: Consumer where the value of the gods or services
and the compensation, if any, claimed
Disposition: [does not exceed rupees twenty lakh],
Appeal dismissed
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a
ORDER District Forum within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction:
B.K. Taimni, Member
(a) The opposite party or each of the
1. Appellant was the complainant before opposite parties, where there are more
the State Commission, where he had than one, at the time of the institutions of
filed a complaint alleging deficiency in the complaint, actually and voluntarily
service on the part of the respondent, resides or [carries on business or has a
Insurance Company. branch office or] personally works for
gain, or
2. The State Commission dealt with the
complaint at the admission stage itself (b) Any of the opposite parties, where
and held that Delhi State Commission there are more than one, at the time of
has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the institution of the complaint, actually
the case. It is not in dispute that the and voluntarily resides or [carries on
Appellant/Complainant had a cold- business or has a branch office], or
storage for which he had obstained a personally works for gain, provided that
Special Perils Policy for Rs. 2.6 crores in such case either the permission of the
and this cold-storage is located at District Forum is given, or the opposite
parties who do not reside, or [carry on
business or have a branch office], or
personally work for gain, as the case
may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) The cause of action, wholly or in

part, arises.

3. The intent of the law was that

everything should not really be centred
in the Head Office and the person should
be able to institute a complaint wherever
there is a Branch Office of the opposite
party organization. Reverse is not true,
i.e. if the whole cause of action arose in
Muzaffarnagar and both the parties are
located in Muzaffarnagar, the complaint
could not have been filed in Delhi
because the Head Office of the
Respondent Insurance Company is
located in Delhi. This will be defeating
the very purpose of the provisions of
Section 11 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. Perhaps this has been done to
avoid going to Lucknow in whose
pecuniary jurisdiction, it would have
fallen. The claim in this case is of Rs.
20,91,000. It is for the appellant to
consider reducing the claim to less than
Rs. 20 lakh and file the complaint before
the District Forum at Muzaffarnagar or
file complaint before the U.P. State
Commission at Lucknow.

4. This Appeal has no merit, hence

dismissed with the above observations.