JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder,President The complainant, alongwith his father, availed of a housing loan from M/s Punjab National Bank Limited, Sector-17, U.T. Chandigarh. Sh.H.D.M. Babar, who was working with M/s Punjab National Bank Limited, approached the complainant, and his deceased father for offering the services of the bank, with the explicit undertaking that, in the event of the death of the insured, the loan amount would be paid by the OP. On the basis of the representation made by Sh.H.D.M. Babar, the complainant and his deceased father agreed to avail of the services of the Life Insurance from the OP and took a policy of Rs.20,00000. The father of the complainant met with an accident on 12.10.2010, by slipping and falling in his house, and expired on the same day. It was stated that, on account of sentimental reasons, postmortem on the dead body of the father of the complainant was not got conducted by him, and he made a request for the release of the dead body without postmortem. The complainant submitted his claim to the OP, but despite his repeated requests and visits, no response was given. It was further stated that the claim of the complainant was declined, as told to him verbally. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 31.12.2010 was issued to the OP, with a request that the claim amount be deposited against loan outstanding against his father, with the Punjab National Bank. It was stated that the OP was under contractual obligation to pay a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs, the amount of claim. On the final refusal of the OP to pay the amount claimed, left with no other alternative, the instant complaint claiming the amount of Rs.20.00 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., as also compensation of Rs.1.00 lac was filed. 2. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, and have gone through the documents on record carefully. 3. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that since the amount claimed by the complainant, is Rs.21.00 lacs, and loan outstanding against the deceased father of the complainant as on 31.1.2011, was Rs.28,46,483.00, as per the statement of account, furnished by him, this Commission has got the pecuniary jurisdiction. He further submitted that the branch office of the OP, is at Chandigarh. He, however, submitted that Sh.Dharam Chand Wadhwa, deceased, was residing in House No.504, Sector-15, Panchkula, where he slipped and sustained injuries. He further submitted that he was got admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh, where he died. He further submitted that the insurance policy was also issued at Chandigarh. He further submitted that, as such, this Commission has got the territorial jurisdiction. 4. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the complainant, in our considered opinion, this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here, that earlier the complainant also filed a complaint on the same facts, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 7.2.2011 as the Commission came to the conclusion that it had got no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The Counsel for the complainant, was unable to satisfy, as to how, the instant complaint before the same Commission, especially in view of the Order dated 7.2.2011, was maintainable. Even otherwise, there is no document, on the record to reveal that Mr.H.D.M.Babar of Punjab National Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh was the duly authorized agent of the Insurance Company , who could issue the policy, on behalf of the OP. In the instant case, as is evident from Annexure C-1, deceased Dharam Chand Wadhwa was a resident of House No.504, Sector-15, Panchkula. It is further evident from the averments, made in the complaint, that he slipped in his house and sustained injuries which probably, ultimately, resulted into his death. Annexure C-1 does not reveal that the cover note of the Policy was issued at Chandigarh. It is evident from Annexure C-4(colly.) that a letter was written to the Manager, Punjab National Bank Limited, Sector-17,Chandigarh by the complainant, for release of the insurance claim of the deceased, to him, being his nominee. The Punjab National Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh vide Annexure C-4, intimated the complainant that he should submit intimation form, First Information Report, Postmortem report, death certificate and claim form of deceased Dharam Chand Wadhwa, insured, direct to IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Ltd. (ITGI Central Unit),Corporate Office,4th and 5th floors, IFFCO Tower Plot No.3,Sector-29, Gurgaon, Haryana. This clearly goes to show that the insurance policy was issued at Gurgaon, and not at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the Insurance Company has its branch office at Chandigarh, does not vest this Commission with territorial jurisdiction. It was held in Pre-fex Prakash Air Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs Widia (India) Ltd. & another 1986-2006 Consumer 10418(NS) decided by the National Commission on 6.7.05, in which reliance was placed on Union Bank of India Vs Seppo Rally & Others III(1999) CPJ 10(SC). that the ‘branch office’ as occurring in clause (a) of sub-section(2) of Section-11 of the Consumer Protection Act, is relatable to the place where a part of cause of action also accrues. In M/s Premier Motor Garage, Chandigarh Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (F.A. No.137 of 2010) , an appeal against the order dated 9.3.2010 , passed by this Commission, holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, the Hon’ble National Commission relying upon the decision in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 titled as Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. ,rendered on 20.10.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion, that the mere fact that the Regional Office of the OP Insurance Company existed at Chandigarh, did not vest the State Commission, at Chandigarh, with the requisite territorial jurisdiction, and, as such, the contention of the Counsel of the appellant, was rejected. In the instant case, as stated above, the insurance policy was issued at Gurgaon ; the father of the complainant who was insured, slipped and sustained injuries, at his residence, at Panchkula (Haryana) and, as such, no cause of action accrued to the complainant, to file the complaint at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the OP has its branch office, at Chandigarh, does not vest this Commission, with territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of this case. Since we have come to the conclusion, that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction, the complaint is required to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Forum. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, for lack of territorial jurisdiction, is ordered to be returned to the complainant, for presentation before the appropriate Forum/Tribunal, within thirty days, from the date of receipt of the same ( complaint). 6. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
