LexSONIC SURGICAL versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ... - [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 265 SONIC SURGICAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004) OCTOBER 20, 2009 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) A B Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s.17(2) - Jurisdiction - Cause of action - Fire broke in godown of appellant at Ambala C - Complaint filed before Consumer Commission at Chandigarh - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable - Consumer Commission, Haryana alone has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - Plea of appellant was that insurance company has branch office at Chandigarh and under the D amended s.17(2) the complaint could be filed at Chandigarh - Such interpretation of amended s. 17(2) would lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting - Expression 'branch office' in the amended s.17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action arose,_ Cause of E action. Fire broke out in the godown of appellant at Ambala. Appellant filed claim petition before Consumer Commission, Chandigarh which was allowed. National Commission set aside the order holding that Consumer F Commh. ·ior at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain tne complaint. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the respondent-insurance company had a branch office at G Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint could be filed in Chandigarh. 265 H / 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is well settled that the expression 'cause of ~ction' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly fire broke ~ B out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. [Para 4] (268-C] ._ , ' c IFB Automotive Seating and System Ltd. and Others v. Union of India AIR 2003 Calcutta 80, approved. Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2002 SC 126, referred to. D "'. 2. The amendment in Section 17(2) of the Consumer -f Protection Act came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 whereas the complaint io th~ present case was filed in the year 2000 and the cause of action arose in 1999. Hence, the E amended section would not have application to the case at hand. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, it would 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 Id a branch office of the insurance company is situated. It F would lead to absurd consequem~es and lead to bench hunting. ·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 G 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [Paras 8 and 9] (270-F-H; 271-A-C] G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth H Edition, 2004, referred to. - SONIC SURGICAL v. NATIONAL INSURANCE 267 COMPANY LTD. 3. Since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the A State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. [Para 10) [271-D-E] Case Law Reference: AIR 2003 Calcutta 80 approved AIR 2002 SC 126 referred to Para 5 Para 5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B 1560 of 2004. C From the Judgment & Order dated 10. 7.2003 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 124 of 2002. Anil Nag for the Appellant. Tanmapa Mehta (for P.N. Puri) for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. D E 2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the order dated 10th July, 2003 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'NCDRC') F whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein has been allowed and the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh has been set aside. 3. It appears that there was a fire on 13-14th February, 1999 at 10.00 p.m. in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. G For claiming compensation, the appellant file
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.