ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.41/2016 title Mool Chand v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Mool Chand filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased insurance policy from opposite parties qua truck No. HP-64A-6583. It is pleaded that on dated 04.06.2015 truck of complainant met with accident due to failure of brakes wherein driver of truck namely Shri Arif died at the spot. It is further pleaded that at the time of accident truck was loaded with wooden slippers and due to failure of brakes truck hit the shops of local residents. It is further pleaded that complainant filed claim before insurance company but insurance company denied claim on the ground that Shri Tara Chand was driving truck at the time of accident. Complainant sought payment of Rs. 926950/- (Nine lac twenty six thousand nine hundred fifty) along-with interest @18% per annum. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It is pleaded that loss was not payable due to violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further pleaded that matter was also decided by Ombudsman after hearing both the parties and no liability was fastened upon insurance company by Ombudsman. It is further pleaded that post-mortem report indicates that Arif son of Ismailudeen died in accident who was driving the truck. It is further pleaded that complainant did not supply driving licence of Arif. It is further pleaded that complainant did not repair vehicle at authorized workshop. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed replication and reasserted the allegations mentioned in complaint. Learned District Forum returned the complaint to complainant with order to file the complaint before appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether insurance company is vicariously liable for acts of its agent namely Pushpender Kumar who had received consideration amount of premium of insurance policy at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P. from complainant on behalf of insurance company which falls within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Solan (H.P.). 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.CW-1 placed on record in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased insurance policy No.2009542334001556 from opposite parties. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 04.06.2015 truck of deponent met with accident due to failure of brakes wherein driver namely Shri Arif died. There is further recital in the affidavit that due to accident deponent suffered loss and damage and claim was filed before insurance company. There is further recital in the affidavit that insurance company denied claim of complainant on the ground that Shri Tara Chand was driving truck at the time of accident. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 926950/- (Nine lac twenty six thousand nine hundred fifty). 9. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Pushpender Kumar in evidence who is authorized agent of opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that for truck No.HP-64A-6583 complainant purchased insurance policy No. 2009542334001556 from opposite parties. There is further recital in affidavit that on 04.06.2015 truck of complainant met with accident due to failure of brakes wherein driver Arif died at the spot. There is further recital in the affidavit that due to accident vehicle sustained loss and damage. There is further recital in the affidavit that claim was filed before insurance company but insurance company denied the claim on the ground that Tara Chand was driving truck at the time of accident. There is further recital in the affidavit that due to accident vehicle sustained loss and damage. There is further recital in the affidavit that claim was filed before insurance company but insurance company denied the claim on the ground that Tara Chand was driving truck at the time of accident. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance policy was sold by deponent being agent of opposite parties at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P. which falls within the jurisdiction of learned District Forum Solan H.P. There is further recital in affidavit filed by agent of opposite parties that insurance policy was purchased by complainant at village Patta Mehlog District Solan (H.P.). 10. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Amit Chawla Manager Legal. There is recital in affidavit that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant has suppressed material facts from learned District Forum. There is further recital in the affidavit that matter was decided by Ombudsman after hearing both the parties and no liability was fastened upon insurance company by Ombudsman. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant did not supply driving licence of Arif. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant had submitted bills from unauthorized repairer. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum Solan H.P. has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide complaint because consideration amount of premium was received by agent of opposite parties from complainant at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P. as per affidavit filed by agent of opposite parties Pushpender Kumar and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused affidavit filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties. There is positive recital in the affidavit filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties that agent of opposite parties had received consideration amount of premium from complainant at village Patta Mehlog (District) Solan H.P. which falls within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Solan (H.P.). State Commission has carefully perused affidavit filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties. There is positive recital in the affidavit filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties that agent of opposite parties had received consideration amount of premium from complainant at village Patta Mehlog (District) Solan H.P. which falls within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Solan (H.P.). It is well settled law that consumer complaint can be filed at a place where accident took place or at place where insurance policy is issued by insurance company or at place where consideration amount of premium is received by insurance company. 12. Insurance company did not file any counter affidavit to the effect that opposite party did not receive the consideration amount from complainant through agent of company namely Pushpender Kumar at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P. Learned District Forum has not considered affidavit of Pushpender Kumar placed on record and even learned District Forum did not discuss contents of affidavit filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties in order. 13. Jurisdiction of learned District Forum is defined under section-11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is quoted in toto :- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed "does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or (b) Any of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of the 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 or (c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises. 14. 14. It is proved on record that agent of the insurance company has received consideration amount of premium on behalf of opposite parties from complainant at place Patta Mehlog which falls within territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Solan (H.P). It is well settled law that company is liable for acts of agent on the concept of vicarious liability. State Commission is of the opinion that affidavit filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties is a relevant fact in the present case. Opposite parties have not taken any defence that agent of insurance company namely Pushpender Kumar had acted beyond his authority in collection of premium amount at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P from complainant. It is well settled law that Principal insurer is bound by acts of its agent. See 2016(III) CPJ 521 NC titled G. Krishna Kumar & Anr. v. Har Auto Pvt. Ltd. & Ors . See 1997(2) CPC 85 H.P. titled M/s. Golden Forests India Limited v. Smt. Sumitra Devi and Another . 15. Ruling relied by learned District Forum i.e. Hoslama v. Branch Manager F.A. No.380 of 2010 decided on 01.06.2012 by H.P. State Consumer Commission is not applicable in the present case and is distinguishable because in the present case agent of insurance company has admitted by way of affidavit that consideration amount of premium from the complainant was received on behalf of insurance company at village Patta Mehlog District Solan (H.P). It is held that part of cause of action arose at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P. where agent of opposite parties received consideration amount of premium from the complainant on behalf of opposite parties. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint is decided accordingly. It is true that accident took place on dated 04.06.2015. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint is decided accordingly. It is true that accident took place on dated 04.06.2015. It is also true that office of insurance company is situated at Mumbai but keeping in view fact that agent of insurance company Pushpender Kumar has himself admitted in affidavit that he had received consideration amount of premium from complainant at village Patta Mehlog District Solan H.P. on behalf of insurance company which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Solan (H.P) it is held that part of cause of action arisen at village Patta Mehlog District Solan (H.P) where agent of insurance company received consideration amount of premium from complainant. Even in the insurance policy annexure C-I placed on record name of Pushpender Kumar as intermediary has been mentioned. 17. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that Insurance Ombudsman has already dismissed complaint of complainant on dated 14.03.2016 and on this ground appeal be dismissed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused order of learned Ombudsman of insurance dated 14.03.2016. Learned Ombudsman had given option to complainant to approach DCDRF for redressal of his grievance in para No.21 of order. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above order of learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No.41/2016 dated 22.02.2017 title Shri Mool Chand v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and complaint is restored to its original number. It is held that part of cause of action arose to complainant at village Patta Mehlog District Solan (H.P) where Pushpender Kumar agent of opposite parties received consideration amount of premium from the complainant qua insurance policy on behalf of insurance company. Affidavit Ex.CW2 filed by Pushpender Kumar agent of insurance company and insurance policy annexure C-1 placed on record will form part and parcel of order. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint on merits afresh strictly in accordance with law and proved facts within one month after receipt of file. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Solan (H.P) on date 13.10.2017. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Learned District Forum will dispose of complaint on merits afresh strictly in accordance with law and proved facts within one month after receipt of file. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum Solan (H.P) on date 13.10.2017. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.