https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171116 The Supreme Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a compensation claim arising from a fire incident in Ambala. Emphasizing the importance of the 'cause of action' being connected to the jurisdiction where the case is filed, the Court rejected arguments for filing in Chandigarh based on an amendment to the Act. The Court clarified that the amendment did not apply retroactively and should not facilitate forum shopping. Consequently, the State Consumer Redressal Commission in Haryana had jurisdiction over the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs. en-us Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171116 The Supreme Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a compensation claim arising from a fire incident in Ambala. Emphasizing the importance of the 'cause of action' being connected to the jurisdiction where the case is filed, the Court rejected arguments for filing in Chandigarh based on an amendment to the Act. The Court clarified that the amendment did not apply retroactively and should not facilitate forum shopping. Consequently, the State Consumer Redressal Commission in Haryana had jurisdiction over the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171116