Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.B.L. Gour, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3 to 5 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Protection Forum, Allahabad, the first respondent herein, whereby the complaint of the petitioner has been held as not maintainable at Allahabad and returned for filing the same before appropriate Forum at Lucknow. A further prayer has been made seeking direction to respondents no. 3 to 5 to pay the amount of compensation due to the petitioner and recover the same from the Insurance Company.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner's husband late Ghanshyam Das Agarwal was a registered trader with the Trade Tax Department, Allahabad and he was carrying on a business of Confectionery and General Merchandise Goods in the name and style of M/s. M.K. Traders. The husband of the petitioner died in a road accident on 07.05.2009 at Allahabad.

4. According to the petitioner, her husband was covered under a Group Insurance Policy which was entered into between the Trade Tax Department i.e. respondents no. 3 to 5 on the one hand and the Insurance Company i.e. respondent no. 2 on the other, for a period starting from 12.11.2008 and ending at 11.11.2009. One of the conditions mentioned in the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into between the Trade Tax Department and the Insurance Company as per Clause 17 of the Agreement was that, in case of any dispute relating to payment of Insurance claim, the jurisdiction to decide the same will lie at the Court at Lucknow.

5. According to the terms and conditions of Group Insurance Scheme, as agreed upon between the Trade Tax Department and the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was to be paid by the Insurance Company on recommendation of the Sectional Joint Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax, to wife/husband of the trader in case of accidental death of such trader registered with the Trade Tax Department occurring in between the Insurance period. The petitioner, being the wife of the registered trader, was entitled to the benefits of Group Insurance Scheme. Hence on non-payment of the same, she filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum at Allahabad which was numbered as Case No. 92 of 2012.

6. The respondents appeared and filed their written statement and raised objection regarding jurisdiction but the same was not raised by the respondents no. 3 to 5. The Insurance Company alone had raised the preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction which was aptly replied by the petitioner. The objection taken by the respondent-Company was that according to Clause No. 17 mentioned in the document, the jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to the payment of Insurance, was with Forum/Court at Lucknow.

7. The stand taken by the petitioner before the Consumer Forum as well as before this Court was that the petitioner is a widow of trader registered with the Trade Tax Department and thus she is the beneficiary to tender/agreement which was entered into between the Trade Tax Department and the Insurance Company. The petitioner's husband was not a party to the said tender/agreement. The beneficiary, not being a party to the agreement, is not effected by the terms and conditions agreed upon between the contracting parties. It has been stated that the respondents have their Branch Office at Allahabad and are also carrying on business at Allahabad thus, Section 11 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1986') comes into play and confers jurisdiction upon the Forum at Allahabad.

8. It is further stated that the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad as the accident admittedly had occurred at Allahabad. The deceased was a registered t