IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18724 of 2008 Between: Quality Care India Limited,(M/s Care Hospital), A Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, With its registered office located at 6-3-248/2,Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.Rep by its Power of Attorney Holder, P.S.R.Swami, S/o. Late P.S.Murthy, age 62, R/o.6-3-630/302 Sai Sharan Apartments, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500 004. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Consumers Forum, Varadaiah Nagar, Khammam-507 002. Khammam District Rep by its Presiding Officer. 2 Chalasani Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Mother Theresa Institute of Science and Technology, H.No.6-112, Siddaram Road, Sathupalli town and Khamma District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of Prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from adjudicating C.C.No. 23/2008 ﬁled by the 2nd respondent as beyond the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SRINATH Counsel for the Respondents: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :18724 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a Multi Specialty Hospital at Hyderbad with no branch at Khammam. The 2nd respondent underwent a surgical procedure at the Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Unit of the petitioner company and in respect of a grievance regarding non- payment of the insurance amount, by the United India Insurance Company Limited, lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Khammam by way of C.C. No.23 of 2008, arraying the United India Insurance Company Limited, Kothagudem, as the 1st respondent and the petitioner as the 2nd respondent. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the United India Insurance Company Ltd., has a branch oﬃce at Kothagudem in Khammam District. Petitioner assails the entertainment of the Consumer Case by the District Consumer Forum on the ground that since the petitioner, the 2nd respondent in the C.C. No.23 of 2008, has no location, presence or operations in Khammam District, the District Consumer Forum, Khammam could not have entertained C.C. No. 23 of 2008, with the petitioner arrayed as the second respondent therein. Reliance for the above premise is placed on the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 11, is the relevant provision and reads as under: “Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business, or has a branch oﬃce) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch oﬃce) or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce, in such institution.” Demonstrably, in C.C. No. 23 of 2008, on the ﬁle of the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, there are two respondents. The petitioner is the 2nd respondent; while the United Insurance Company Limited, which has a branch oﬃce at Kothagudem, is the 1st respondent. On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the conclusion is compelling that a complaint may be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the opposite parties, (where there are plural parties) reside, as respondents or have a branch office. No doubt, the provisions of Section 11(2) enjoin that in such an event, either the permission of the District Forum should be given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch oﬃce or personally work for gain, within the territorial limits of a District Consumer Forum, acquiesce in such institution. In view of the averments in the writ petition, acquiescence of the petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent in C.C. No. 23 of 2008, is excluded. The entertainment of the complaint by the District Forum however compels an inference that it has granted permission. The Legislature does not prescribe any particular form for accord of permission by the District Consumer Forum, hence permission may be inferred from the conduct as well. In the absence of any such prescription regarding according of permission, a purposive interpretation is legitimized and the entertainment of the Consumer Case by the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, may legitimately be considered as permission granted by the District Consumer Forum within the meaning of the provisions, as explicated in Clause (b) of Section 11(2) of the Act. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 28th August, 2008 Pnb