Rama Mishra v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Delhi High Court · 09 Aug 2024 · 2024:DHC:6015
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 3141/2024
2024:DHC:6015
civil petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of a petition challenging NCDRC order for lack of territorial jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 3141/2024 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th August, 2024
CM(M) 3141/2024 & CM APPL. 45552-45553/2024
SMT RAMA MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Advocate.
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate.
(through video conferencing)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 12.01.2024 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘NCDRC’) in First Appeal No.1870/2019.

2. Said Appeal was filed before NCDRC impugning order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow in Complaint No.CC 299/2017.

3. Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh, relying upon judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter, Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024, learned counsel for petitioner prays that she may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to CM(M) 3141/2024 2 approach the jurisdictional High Court.

4. This Court has gone through said order wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, very categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC had allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi High Court and observing that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with by the State Commission of West Bengal, it was held that the jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta should have been invoked.

5. The situation is precisely the same here, too.

6. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.

7. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion, whatsoever, over the merits of the case.

JUDGE AUGUST 09, 2024