Patiala Lace House v. The New India Assurance

1. The petition is for the following reliefs: (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and setaside 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 KUMAR KAURAV 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.[1] and the decision passed by this Court in the case of the General Manager Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Rohit Malhotra,[2] 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, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285 2024:DHC:7035 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. Similar view is taken by this Court in General Manager Punjab National Bank and Ors. The paragraph nos. 71 to 73 is extracted as under:

73. Resultantly, all the present petitions are disposed of while holding that these petitions are not maintainable before this Court for want of jurisdiction. Needless to say, the petitioners would, always, be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy by filing petitions before the respective jurisdictional High Courts.”

8. It is manifest that the entire cause of action, including the filing of the complaint, adjudication by the District Forum, and subsequent appeal before the State Commission, has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The mere fact that the NCDRC, a National Authority, is located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction on this Court.

9. In view thereof, the instant petition stands dismissed with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.