BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 31^ST August 2013

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.114/2013

(Admitted on 27.4.2013)

Mrs. Rekha,

Co P.Purushotham Pai,

Kaveri, Nehru Avenue Cross Road,

Mangalore.                                             …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Deenanath Shetty)

          VERSUS

1. Authorised Signatory,

    Senior Divisional Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India,  

    Divisional Office,

    Jeevan Prakash,

    P.B. No.37, Bannimantap,

    Mysore.

2. Authorised Signatory,

   Senior Divisional Manager,

   Life Insurance Corporation of India,

   P & GS, Popular Building,

   3^rd Floor, Mangalore.

   Karnataka 575 001.                           ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 & 2:

Sri.Anantha Krishna Udupa)

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, she is a wife of one deceased B.S. Haricharan who had taken two life Insurance Policies from the Opposite Party No.1 bearing Policy No.7221500906 for a sum proposed of Rs.50,000/- and had paid half yearly premium of Rs.1,097/- and the date of commencement of the policy was from 1.6.2010 and the said deceased had also taken another life insurance policy from Opposite Party No.1 bearing Policy No.724501054 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid the quarterly premium of Rs.1,440/- to the Opposite Party. It is stated that, on 25.10.2011 the insured died leaving behind the wife as his legal heir due to Cardiac Arrest.  The complainant is the nominee of the deceased submitted the claim form and approached the Opposite Party No.1 to claim the insurance amount, but the opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the accrued interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant till the final payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by R.P.A.D. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version stated that the Opposite Party i.e. LIC of India raised a preliminary objection along with Supreme Court Citation stating that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Because the complainant submitted the death claim of her husband Harischandra i.e. insured under the policy issued by Mysore Divisional Office of LIC of India, admittedly the life assured proposed for the policy at Madikeri Branch of Mysore Division. The claim forms are submitted at Mysore Divisional Office, the claim of the complainant  has been repudiated by the Mysore Divisional Office and all the communications regarding policy and the claim has been done with the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Mysore Divisional office. And the entire cause of action has been pleaded against the opposite party No.2 i.e. Mangalore Branch office and contended that there is no cause of action and any kind to file a complaint against Opposite Party No.2.

By considering the above aspect, we decided to draw preliminary issue in respect of jurisdiction before considering the subject matter on merits:-

1. Whether this District FORA has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

                        We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                          Point No.(i)  : Negative.

                         Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order. 

REASONS

IV.     1.  POINT NO. (i):

    However, on perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the repudiation of the death claim of the complainant under the two life insurance policies issued by the Mysore Divisional Office of LIC of India are under challenge and the repudiation of those policies are done by Mysore Division Office and not by Opposite Party No.2.

However, in a case of SONIC SURGICAL Vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED in Hon’ble Supreme Court Cases 135 (2010)1 held that:-

“Consumer Protection – Consumer Forums- Jurisdiction – Territorial Jurisdiction of State commission – Place of filing complaint – Expression “branch office” in S.17(2)(b), CP Act, 1986 – Filing of complaint anywhere where branch office of opposite party situated – permissibility – Held, expression “branch office” would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen but not each and every branch office of opposite party wherever it is situated – Insurance policy taken at Ambala  (Haryana) but claim for compensation made at Chandigarh contending that respondent has a branch at Chandigarh, hence complaint could be filed at Chandigarh – Held, such interpretation leads to absurdity and bench hunting – In this case, as cause of action arose at Ambala, State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the  complaint –Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17(2)(b) (as amended W.e.f. 15-3-2003) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 20 – Corporate Laws – Company Law –Jurisdiction – Territorial Jurisdiction

(Paras 10 and 11)

B. Interpretation of Statutes – Basic rules – Literal or strict construction – Departure from – when permissible – Held, interpretation has to be given to a section in the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence – Departure from plain and literal words of the act some times necessary to avoid absurdity- Particular statutes or provisions.

(Para 10)”

On perusal of the principals laid under the above said citation, an interpretation has given to the amended Act, which does not lead to absurd consequences because the lordships observed that, just because branch offices of the insurance company is situated it cannot be taken as a complaint can be filed anywhere in India. Whether the branch offices situated, it will lead absurd consequences and it will lead the bench hunting.  The expression branch office in the amended Act 17(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act would mean, branch office, wherein cause of action has arising  but in order to award  absurdity,  the complaint shall be filed within the jurisdiction where the cause of action has been arisen.

          In the present case, the cause of action arisen within the jurisdiction of Mysore Division LIC of India not in Mangalore. Therefore, we are convinced that, this District FORA has no territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of Mysore Division LIC of India. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint before the jurisdiction of Mysore. In view of above said observation we close the complaint.

          In the result, we pass the following:  

ORDER

The complaint is closed. The complainant is at liberty to present complaint before the Mysore jurisdiction.

 Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 5 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31^ST day of August 2013)

          PRESIDENT                MEMBER                         MEMBER