Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/65/2015

Surinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar, Adv.

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	65 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	06.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	08.04.2015

 

Surinder Kaur wife of Late Sh. Amarjit Singh, resident of House No.409, Phase VI, Mohali-160055.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, formely ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, IST Floor, Good Hill Square, No.690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore-560068.

Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, formely ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.166-167, 2nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

2. Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, formely ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited,  Ist  Floor, Good Hill Square, No.690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore-560068.

 

              .... Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

           

Argued by: Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

 

JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.   

           

            The facts, in brief, are that the representative of the Opposite Parties, approached Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) husband of the complainant, with a  request to take their Policy. Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) filled in the proposal form, and, as such, was issued Policy No.02679372 by the Opposite Parties. At the time of issuance of the said Policy, medical of Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) was also got done by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that premiums, in respect of the said Policy were regularly paid by Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased). Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) made his wife, as nominee, of the said Policy. It was further stated that at the time of taking the said Policy, Sh.Amarjit Singh, husband of the complainant was hail and hearty. 

2.       It was further stated that Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) was regularly attending his office. However, on 28.11.2013, Sh.Amarjit Singh expired, leaving behind his wife, son and a daughter. As such, the complainant, being nominee of Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased), submitted claim to the Opposite Parties. However, to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 30.06.2014 Annexure C-3, repudiated her genuine claim, on flimsy grounds, that Sh.Amarjit Singh had been suffering from preexisting disease, which fact was not disclosed by him, at the time of taking the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that legal notice dated 13.09.2014 Annexure C-4 was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the claim amount of Rs.35 lacs, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from the date of repudiation of the same, till realization; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3.       The complainant, in support of her case, submitted her affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
4.       We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
5.       The principal question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got the territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. It may be stated here that perusal of the repudiation letter dated 30.06.2014 Annexure C-3, reveals that the same had been issued by Bangalore Office of the Opposite Parties. Reply to the legal notice dated 13.09.2014 Annexure C-4 served upon the Opposite Parties, was also given by the Bangalore Office of the Opposite Parties. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the complainant, that the Policy, in question, was obtained by Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) husband of the complainant, from Chandigarh Office of the Opposite Parties. However, the complainant failed to produce, on record, copy of the same (Policy), to prove this factum. Since, copy of the Policy, has not been produced by the complainant, on record, an adverse inference could be drawn, that had the same been produced, it would have gone against her interest. No doubt, according to the Counsel for the complainant, payment of premiums, towards the said Policy was made by Sh.Amarjit Singh (now deceased) at the Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. However, no document was produced, on the record, showing that these payments were made at Chandigarh. Whereas, on the other hand, as stated above, copy of the repudiation letter dated 30.06.2014 Annexure C-3, as also reply dated 30.09.2014 Annexure C-5, to the legal notice dated 13.09.2014 Annexure C-4 served upon the Opposite Parties, on 15.09.2014, were issued by their Bangalore Office. Mere location of Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh, in the absence of any cause of action, having accrued to the complainant at the said place, does not confer territorial Jurisdiction on this Commission to entertain and decide the complaint.
6.       While interpreting the provisions of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, in Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. IV(2009) CPJ 40(SC), the 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 perusal of the facts of Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), clearly goes to reveal that the Policy was taken by the complainant at Ambala; the godown, in respect of which, the Policy was taken, was situated at Ambala, whereas the complaint was filed before this Commission, at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, it was held that since no cause of action arose, within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Commission, at Chandigarh, except that the Opposite Party had the Branch Office there, it had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. In Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an argument was advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that since the Branch Office of the Insurance Company, was situated at Chandigarh, even if, no other cause of action arose to the complainant, within the territorial Jurisdiction of Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant therein, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner, referred to above. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that this Commission has got no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the instant complaint and, as such, the same (complaint) is liable to be returned to the complainant, for presenting the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).
8.       It was, however, submitted by the Counsel for the complainant that the proposal form, copy whereof is Annexure C-2 was signed by the husband of the complainant and Advisor of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. Mere alleged signing of the proposal form at Chandigarh does not furnish any cause of action. After the acceptance of proposal form, the concluded contract of insurance, came into existence at Bangalore. The Insurance Policy, though received by the complainant, as admitted in the complaint, was not produced. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn that had the same been produced, it would have gone against her interests, in as much as, it would have proved that it was issued from Bangalore. Thus, the proposal form did not furnish any cause of action at Chandigarh. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
9.       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint in original, alongwith the documents, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, against valid receipt,  after retaining the attested to be true photocopies of the same, with a liberty, to file the same, before the appropriate State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, having territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide it (complaint).
10.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11.       The file, be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

08.04.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

 

 

Rg.