This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2020 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in CC No 4 2020. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant Smt. Arakti Saha registered a Consumer Complaint to the score that on the basis of phone call by respondent No. 3  Deal Money Securities Pvt. Ltd. of Maharashtra the Appellant/Complainant has gone into a negotiation for purchasing Health Insurance Policy from the Cigna TTK Health Insurance Co. having registered office at Mumbai, Maharashtra. After, telephone conversation the Complainant/ Appellant purchased through net service three insurance policies total coverage amount Rs. 7 Lakh Per Year for the insured and her spouse. The entire process of purchasing policy was done through cheque payment and internet process from Siliguri residence. The Complainant/Appellant has paid huge premium amount and the Insurance Company has sent three Insurance policies viz Jeevandhan Supreme, Jeevandhan Platinum and Jeevandhan Customised through post and the Complainant/Appellant has received the said policies at her resident at Siliguri through post on 25.09.2018 and after going through the terms and condition of the policies the Complainant found that some facts was concealed at the time of telephonic negotiations and came to know that the Insurance Company have been cheating the Complainant through a secret plan of misleading and misguiding their innocent customers over telephone by getting them in dark. After finding the discrepancies the Appellant/Complainant has expressed her intention to cancel the said policies over telephone and by written request urged the Insurance Company to refund the entire paid premium amounts and subsequently while her request for refund of the policies premium amount was not entertained the Lawyer’s notice was sent to the address of the O.P Insurance Company through mail as well as through post and in spite of that the Insurance Company did not pay any heed with the proposal of the Complainant and for that reason, she registered the Consumer Complaint. Ld. Forum at the time of admission hearing found that in this Consumer Complaint all the five number of Opposite Parties and their offices are located at Maharashtra and they have no Branch offices within the local limits of the Forum and the cause of action has not arisen within the local limits of the Forum and the Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer dispute and for that reason under the provisions of Section 11(2) of  C.P Act, the case was not admitted for want of territorial jurisdiction. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the observation of Ld. Forum at the time of admission of the case is contrary to law which is erroneous and Ld. Forum has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested by law and the said order has been challenged in the appeal. The appeal has been registered in due time and notice was sent to the address of the O.P/Respondents. They have received the notice of appeal in due course. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 1,3 and 5 have recorded their presence before this Bench. Ultimately on the date of final hearing only respondent No. 1 has contested the appeal by filing the W.N.A. The appeal is heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. R. Sarkar and Miss. S. Das and the respondent No. 1 are being represented through Ld. Advocate Mr. C. Chakraborty and Mr. A. Rai.

Decision with reasons

Fact remains that the Complainant is a permanent resident of Siliguri and within the jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri from where she has negotiated with the respondent Insurance Company through telephone for purchasing the three Insurance Policies and she has paid the premium of policies by issuing cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, Siliguri and the said cheque was sent by currier service to the office of respondent Insurance Company located at Mumbai, Maharashtra. The premium amount through cheque was cleared from the Bank Account maintained at HDFC Bank, Siliguri Branch where the policy premium was paid. The Opposite Parties/respondents have sent the policy papers and certificates through email as well as through post. Thereafter, the Complainant found that she was seriously cheated and there was lapse from the part of the respondent company as suppressed some material facts and through misrepresentation they have obtained the premium amounts from the Complainant in a fraudulent manner and for that reason the Complainant/Appellant wanted to cancel the said three policies and asked them to refund the premium amount while her approach was not fulfilled or obliged by the Insurance Company. She has registered the Consumer Complaint. Now, the question is whether the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri has got any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant Consumer Complaint. The plain reading of Section 11(2) clearly speaks that a complaint shall be institute in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

1. The Opposite Parties where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides.
2. or carries on business or has branch office or personal works for gain. Or.
3. The cause of action wholly or partly arises.

Admittedly, out of the five Opposite Parties in this case they are not the inhabitant within the territorial limit of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. Their residence and offices are located at Maharashtra. Now, the question is, has the Siliguri, D.C.D.R.F got the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance over the Consumer Complaint. The Appellant/Complainant takes the plea that he has purchased the policies through online from her residential address at Siliguri and premium amounts were also paid through her account and the policies issued by the respondents were received by the appellant in her residential address at Siliguri and thus the part cause of action was arising within the jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. Ld. Advocate of appellant further submits at the time of argument that according to Section 2 (7) of C.P. Act, 2019 the term “Buys” or “Hires” or avails any service includes offline and online transaction through electronic means or by daily shops or track selling or Multi-Level Marketing. He further argued that the payment of premium was paid by issuing three cheques sitting at the residence of the Complainant and the said cheque was drawn at HDFC Bank, Siliguri. So, the entire transaction suggest that the cause of action wholly and partly was held at Siliguri and within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. The respondent No. 1 at the time of argument and by furnishing the W.N.A contended that if we read the Section 11(2)(a) and (b) of C.P. Act, we find that the observation of Ld. Forum was correct in the Eye of Law and the Complainant is restricted to register this instant Consumer Complaint as per Section 11(2)(a) of C.P. Act, 1986 before Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and in support of the argument he referred judicial decisions reported in 2012 CPJ 821 NC. After going through the judicial decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate of the respondent, we find that the case cited is different one as because in the cited case the Consumer Complainant has chosen to file the Consumer Complaint at Chandigarh as because the Branch office was located at Chandigarh but the cause of action was held at Ambala and for that reason Chandigarh has got no jurisdiction. But in our case rightly the cause of action was held wholly or partly at Siliguri as because the policy negotiations were held through telephone and internet. The Complainant/Appellant has purchased the said policies sitting at her residence at Siliguri. She issued the cheque for payment of premium sitting at Siliguri and the said cheque was encashed through the Bank which is also located at Siliguri within the jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. Rather, the Insurance Policies were dispatched from Mumbai and the same was received by the Complainant/Appellant at her residents at Siliguri. So, as per provisions of Section 11(2)© of C.P. Act, this Consumer Complaint is well maintainable at Siliguri D.C.D.R.F., as because the part cause of action was held within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri. So, the order of Ld. Forum for not admission of the instant Consumer Dispute for want of territorial jurisdiction is found erroneous and not vested with law. Thus, the appeal succeeds.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost. The order delivered by the Ld. Forum dated 28.01.2020 in CC No 4 of 2020 passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri is hereby set aside. For the sake of convenience and for the sake of saving time and on the basis of Prima facie merit of the case the instant Consumer Complaint is admitted. Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri is requested to issue notice upon the Respondent/O.Ps within 15 days from the date of receiving the order, asking them to contest the instant Consumer Dispute Bearing No CC 4 of 2020 by filing W.V if desires within the time limit framed by the provisions of C.P. Act, 1986. Ld. Forum is further requested to adjudicate the dispute on merit, observing all essential legal formalities.  

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri for doing the needful.