No. 5/01.11.2010

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. S. Nayak, the Ld. Advocate along with Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Joy Narayan Chowdhury, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 through Mr. Abhik K. Dutt, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Respondent No. 1 separately and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 jointly file BNA.  Cost has been paid by the Appellant and receipt filed.

This appeal is by the Insurer against the judgement and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the President, District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.

A very short question has been raised in this appeal as to the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid District Forum to entertain the complaint case.  Upon careful reading of the complaint as well as the impugned judgement it is evident that the Insurance Policy was taken in respect of deceased Nurul Sk. from the Office of the Insurer at Kolkata.  The said deceased succumbed to the injuries in the district hospital at Malda.  The Complainant, the daughter of the said deceased, as per the complaint itself, is a resident of Malda.  In the complaint it has not been alleged that the Insurer has no Branch Office at Malda.  In spite of such facts the aforesaid complaint case was filed before the District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.  The O.Ps raised objection as to the jurisdiction of the said Forum to entertain the said complaint by pointing out that the entire facts giving rise to the aforesaid complaint case had fallen within the jurisdiction of Consumer District Redressal Forum, Malda.  The District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj had, therefore, no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.  Such objection has been rejected by the impugned judgement and order by holding that the Insurer is also carrying on its insurance business through a Branch Office at Raiganj which fall within the jurisdiction of the District Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 11 read with Section 17(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj has the competence to entertain the complaint case.  It is interesting to note that initially the complaint case being Case No. 10 of 2009 was filed  before the District Forum at Malda.  The said case was dismissed for non-prosecution due to some technical defects and thereafter the same was filed before the District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.

Be that as it may the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonie Surgical – vs. – National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010 CTJ ( SC) (CP) as held in paragraph 9 as under :

“Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.  In our opinion , an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Guwahati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79].

The said Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision is binding upon us.  In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we have no other alternative than to hold that the District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj had no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint case.  Accordingly the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj is set aside.  The appeal is accordingly allowed.  However, it is made clear that the Complainant would be at liberty to file the aforesaid complaint afresh before the District Forum, Malda.   If such complaint is filed within a period of 30 days from this day then the Complainant will be entitled to the benefit of exclusion of the time that has been consumed in the proceeding before the District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj as the said proceeding had been conducted in good faith in a Forum having no jurisdiction to entertain the same.