Delhi High Court: A petition was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) relating to territorial jurisdiction. Subramonium Prasad, J., declined to entertain the writ petition on the same grounds of territorial jurisdiction.
An initial complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum in Cooch Behar, West Bengal related to a medical incident where a patient, operated for ovarian cancer on 24-02-2012 in Kolkata, died on 30-07-2014. Dissatisfied with the District Forum’s decision, the petitioner appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in West Bengal. Following an unfavorable decision from the SCDRC, a revision petition was filed before the NCDRC, which issued a judgment prompting the petitioner to seek judicial review through the current writ petition.
The petitioner argued that the NCDRC’s order was erroneous and warranted judicial review contending the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter since the NCDRC is in Delhi. Conversely, the respondent’s counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, except for the location of the NCDRC. They relied on a Supreme Court order in Siddhartha S Mookerjee v. Madhab Chand Mitter, 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 478, which emphasized that jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arose, not where the revisional authority is situated.
The Court after hearing both parties, observed that the entire cause of action, from the medical treatment to the death of the patient and the initial filing of the complaint, occurred in Kolkata. The Court referred to Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case (supra), which clarified that jurisdiction is based on where the cause of action arose, not merely where the revisional authority (NCDRC) is located. When the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, the Court granted it, allowing them the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.
The Court disposed of the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to withdraw and take appropriate legal steps. The Court directed the release of Rs. 50 lakhs deposited as a condition precedent for the issuance of notice to the petitioner. It also clarified that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply, allowing the time spent during the filing and disposal of the present writ petition to be considered in calculating the limitation period for any future legal proceedings. The writ petitions were disposed of without being entertained on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, and the Court made no comments on the merits of the case, leaving it open for the petitioner to seek redress in the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.
[Jute Corporation of India v Tapan Kumar Barman, W.P.(C) 13628/2023, decided on 22-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava and Mr. Gaurav Anand, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Apoorva Bhumesh and Ms. Madhvavi Khare, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Chitra Bhanu Gupta, Advocate for R-12
The post appeared first on .