$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12102/2025 Date of Decision: 28.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

PATIALA LACE HOUSE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, Advocate.

versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Mr. Sahil Paul and Mr.

Harmeet Singh Phillip, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

This matter has been taken up today, as 02.03.2026 was declared holiday.

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:

(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and set- aside the Order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab in Appeal No.15 of

20.; and/or (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the genuine claim as per survey by independent surveyor appointed by the company itself amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- with interest upto date and Rs. 20 Lacs as compensation in lieu of harassment, mental agony, loss of time and money and for destroying the prestigious span of life and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses in the interest of justice. /and (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to enhance them compensation amount awarded by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mansa, Punjab in the interest of justice; and/or (d) pass any such other and further orders as are deemed fit & proper, necessary & expedient in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. The sole reason for the petitioner approaching this Court is that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), is situated in Delhi, and has entertained revision petition arising from the order dated 31.08.2022 (hereinafter „impugned order‟) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents-New India Assurance Company Limited places reliance on the decision passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth S. Mookerjee and Anr. vs. Madhab Chand Mitter and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285 and the decision passed by this Court in the case of the General Manager Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Rohit Malhotra,, 2024:DHC:7035 to contend that the petitioner has to approach the jurisdictional High Court under whose jurisdiction the dispute had arisen.

4. He submits that merely on the ground that NCDRC is in Delhi should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition by this Court.

5. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the dispute was initially adjudicated by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Mansa, Punjab. Being aggrieved by the decision therein, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. It is, this decision which was the subject matter before the NCDRC.

6. The paragraph nos. 7 to 9 of the decision passed in the case of Siddharth S. Mookerjee and Anr., is extracted as under:

“7. Treating the High Court of Delhi as the jurisdictional High Court, the respondent no.1 has filed petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued on the said petitions on 04th October, 2023, on the adjudication of jurisdictional aspect. This is what has brought the appellants before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contends that the jurisdictional High Court in the instant case ought to be treated as the High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as the judgment impugned before the High Court was passed by the NCDRC at Delhi.

9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No.1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the pat