CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2022) 10 NCDRC CK 0052

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs S. Balu

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 10 October 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal No. 2282 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 323 words

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

IA 2492 of 2021 (placing addl. documents)

Since the documents sought to be filed were part of the trial court record, the application is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

The application stands disposed of.

APPEAL

1.

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant, Opposite Party before the State Commission, against the order dated 13.07.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, Tamil Nadu (for short “the State Commission”) in MP No.188 of 2016 in CC No.130/2016 whereby the preliminary objection of the Appellant, that the State Commission did not have the territorial jurisdiction, was dismissed.

2.

The Complainant in his Complaint has clearly mentioned that the accident had taken place at Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu.  About the accident, the police was informed and a certificate of police inspector of Cuddalore was also filed by the Complainant along with the Complaint.  In the Complaint, the Complainant had contended that since the accident had taken place at Cuddalore, the State Commission had the territorial jurisdiction.

3.

It is not in dispute that the Complainant/Respondent was having an insurance policy and immediately after the accident, the claim had been filed and investigator was appointed by the Appellant.   During his investigation, the surveyor also had stated that the accident had taken place at the shore near harbour at Cuddalore.  Therefore, the fact that part of cause of action had arisen at Cuddalore is an admitted fact.  Since the part of cause of action had arisen in Cuddalore under Section 17(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission had the territorial jurisdiction.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.  The present Appeal has no merit.  The same is dismissed.

5.

Stay granted in this case stands vacated.  Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 08.12.2022 for further hearing in the matter.