2009(7) Supreme 101(1)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Sonic Surgical — Appellant
versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004
Decided on : 20-10-2009
AIR 2003 Calcutta, 80 ,AIR 2002 SC 126,relied
Facts of the Case :
Fire broke down in the godown of the appellant at Ambala herein in the instant case.For claiming compensation, appellant filed a claim petition before the Consumer Commission of the Union Territory, Chandigarh constituted under Section 17 of ‘the Act’. Said claim petition was allowed by Consumer Commission of Union Territory, Chandigarh. On appeal, NCDRC allowed appeal of respondent on ground that Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of NCDRC.
Findings of the Court :
No part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. Instantly fire broke 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 in Chandigarh. Apart from that Amendment brought about in Section 17(2) of the Act came into force w.e.f.15.3.2003 whereas the complaint in the instant case had been filed in the year 2000 and the cause of action arose in 1999.Hence amended section held to have no application to the case at hand. Instantly since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No reason found to interfere with the impugned order of NCDRC. Appeal was dismissed
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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’) 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. For claiming compensation, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Consumer Commission of the Union Territory, Chandigarh constituted under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’). The said claim petition filed by the appellant herein was allowed by the Consumer Commission of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. On appeal, the NCDRC allowed the appeal of the respondent herein on the ground that the Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC.
4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action’ means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke 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 in Chandigarh.
5. One of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly) while a Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of IFB Automotive Seating and System Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India, 1 AIR 2003 Calcutta, 80 has dealt with the question as to the meaning of the expression ‘cause of action’. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. 2 AIR 2002 SC 126, in para 40 of the said judgment it has been observed as under :-
“In Adani Exports (AIR 2002 SC 126) (supra) the learned Judges in para 13 set out the facts pleaded by the petitioner to give rise to cause of action conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Ahmedabad. One of the facts pleaded is that non-granting and denial utilization of the credit in the pass book will affect the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad. This fact is not pleaded in the case in hand. Even then the learned Judges held that those facts are not sufficient to furnish a cause of action as they are not connected with the relief sought for by the respondents. Here also the relief is against the orders of approval and this High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to grant that relief. Therefore, the communication to the effect that the petitioners’ representation against orders of approval is rejected is of no consequence. The Supreme Court, further dealing the concept of Aritcle 226(2) and relying on the decision of ONGC (1994 AIR SCW 3287), explained the concept of cause of action in para 17 at page 130 of the report and the relevant extracts wherefrom are excerpted below : “It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. acts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. The learned Judges also held in para 18 as follows :
“The non-granting and denial of credit in the passbook having an ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad would not also, in our opinion, give rise to any such cause of action to a Court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate on the actions compl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.