National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While considering the instant revision petition wherein the petitioner contended that Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had gone into the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of the DCDRC and passed an order based on this issue, even when the same was not raised by Reliance General Insurance; the Bench of Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Saroj Yadav, J. (Member), remanded the matter to the State Commission to be heard on merits.
The petitioner pointed out that Section- of the specifically mentions that if 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 either the permission of the 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.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.2 has a branch office in Datia and the Complainant resides in Datia as well.
The NCDRC noted that the State Commission did not look into the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company on merits, and rather it just dismissed the Complaint on territorial jurisdiction.
The NCDRC further opined that, if the State Commission had in mind that the Complaint should have been instituted at the place where the incident in issue, i.e., theft, took place (Gwalior), then such clarity should have been put forth by them in the order. The NCDRC further stated that, after the matter had already been decided on merits by the District Commission and noting that both Datia and Gwalior fall under the purview of the SCDRC, the State Commission could have heard the matter on merits.
The NCDRC also took note of the primary fact that Reliance General Insurance did not take the ground of territorial jurisdiction before State Commission and therefore, the order of the State Commission was declared to be bad in law and the matter was remanded.
[Gangaram Niranjan v. Manager, Reliance General Insurance, REVISION PETITION NO. 2240 OF 2024, decided on 29-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For petitioner: Ashu Pathak, Advocate
The post appeared first on .