DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Dayal Singh, resident of Village Kailash Nagar, Tund Khar, P.O. Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, District Una (Himachal Pradesh) through his Special Power of Attorney Ajay Singh Rathaur son of Dayal Singh, resident of village Kailash Nagar, Tund Kahar, P.O. Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, District Una (HP).

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Regd Off. One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15^th & 16^th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013 through its Managing Director.

2.                 The Branch Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 75, 1^st Floor, Phase-9, Mohali 160055.

3.                 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 149-150, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009 through its Manager.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: None for the complainant

                        Sh. Nitin Thatai, Adv. for the OPs

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Dayal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

“(a)    compensation of Rs.50,000/- may kindly be awarded to the complainant for mental agony and harassment.

(b)              legal expenses of Rs.5500/-

(c)              Change of policy from premium Rs.2.00 lacs p.a. to Rs.1.00 lac p.a. or in the alternative cancel the complainant’s policy and refund the whole paid amount without any deduction.

(d)             Any other relief to which complainant may be found entitled to by this Hon’ble Forum.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he opted for a plan of the opposite party as per which he was to pay annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/-. He was issued the policy on 28.3.2010.  According to the complainant, he received the policy documents on 28.3.2010 and he kept the same as such in safe custody.  It has been averred that on 8.11.2010 he received a notice that the said policy had lapsed. According to the complainant, though he opted to pay the premium of Rs.1,00,000/- annually, but, in the policy document, it was incorporated that the policy was biannual meaning that he was to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- after six months.  He issued a notice dated 15.7.2011 for converting the policy from premium of Rs.2.00 lacs to Rs.1.00 lac p.a. within 15 days, but no reply was received to the said notice.   According to the complainant, the aforesaid acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In their joint written statement the opposite parties, at the outset, took the preliminary objection that this Forum has no jurisdiction in the matter as no cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.  On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant took the policy after understanding all the terms and conditions and signed the proposal form dated 25.3.2010.  It has been denied that the complainant was to pay Rs.1,00,000/- annually as premium. It has further been pleaded that if the complainant had any grievance, he could have opted for change in the terms and conditions within the 15 days free look period as admittedly the policy in question was received by him. According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           On 16.8.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           According to the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties, the proposal form (Ex.D-2) for the policy in question was filled in at Mohali.  A perusal of the said form shows that even the cheque of Punjab National Bank, issued towards premium, was payable at Una (HP). The complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that any cause of action accrued at Chandigarh.  The law on this point, however, is now well settled.  In the case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“4.     In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression cause of action means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

XXX                               XXX                               XXX

8.       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 Gauhati 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].”

7.                           The ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Hence, we are of the view that the District Forum at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 

8.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to file the complaint in the appropriate District Forum having jurisdiction over the matter.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.08.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg