DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.163/2017
Smt. Neelam Sharma
W/o Late Shri Rajender Kumar Sharma,
R/o 4400, Kalindi Hills, Sector 49,
Faridabad, 121001, Haryana
….Complainant
Versus
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
IFFCO Sadan,
C-1, District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
Paramount Health Services Pvt. Ltd.
401-402, Summer Plaza,
Marol Maroshi Road,
Marol, Andheri (East)
Mumbai 400 059
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 11.05.2017
Date of Order : 15.02.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
1. The Complainant who is the resident of Faridabad has filed the present complaint regarding an insurance claim which was purchased online however, the policy issuing office was Indore.
2. The preliminary issue for consideration is whether this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint.
3. The territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is invoked solely on the ground that the registered office of the OP is situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Section 34 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides that a complaint may be instituted in any of the District Commission, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, wherein clauses (a) to (d) are attracted. Section 34 has been reproduced herein below
34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, —
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Limited (2010) 2 SCC 135while adjudicating section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 categorically held that State Commission where the “branch office” of OP is situated would have jurisdiction to entertain complaints, only if cause of action had also arisen wherein branch office is situated. Thus, mere existence of branch office would not confer jurisdiction.
5. Relying on Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Company Limited, the Hon’ble NCDRC in KaizadMarzban Baraiya vs National Insurance Ltd RP No. 2710/2015 held that:
6. Therefore, the place of registered office of respondent no.2 by itself shall not confer jurisdiction on the Consumer Forum which otherwise do not have the territorial jurisdiction.
7. However, a division bench of the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Pratap Chandra Sinha vs Kindle Developers Private Limited 2017 (3) CPR 287 distinguished the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical by holding the same is applicable only to branch office and not registered office of the OP. The Hon’ble NCDRC in Pratap Chandra Sinha allowed the complaint to be entertained at a place where the registered office of OP was situated.
8. Another Division Bench of the NCDRC, however, in a subsequent judgment in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh vs Kailash Healthcare Hospital 2019 (3) CPR 627took a contradictory view by rejecting the contention that the registered office of the OP would confer territorial jurisdiction to Delhi State Commission. In this matter no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and the neither the doctor against whom the medical negligence was pleaded, worked for gain in territorial jurisdiction of Delhi State Commission. The cause of action took place at Noida and the doctor also worked in Noida, hence the Hon’ble NCDRC held that State Commission situated at Lucknow would have jurisdiction. Incidentally, one of the members of bench was common in both the judgments.
9. In another matter, a single Judge of NCDRC in the matter of BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal I (2020) C PJ103(NC) allowed a complaint to be entertained in Delhi for the reason that the registered office of one of the OP was situated in Delhi. This judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as BMW India Private Limited vs Mukul Aggarwal in SLP no. 10319/2020 vide order dated 21st September 2020.
10. It is trite that in case of conflicting judgments of the same bench strength, the subordinate Courts, have discretion to choose which of the two conflicting judgments to be followed. We follow the Hon’ble NCDRC’s judgement in the matter of Sarvesh Kumar Singh as it is in line with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical and is the latter judgment.
11. Admittedly, in the facts of this case, no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The policy was taken online, the letter vide which the policy was issued by the office of the OP in Indore. It is also noticed that the policy states that the claims would be handled by OP 2 which is stationed in Mumbai, the correspondence between the complainant and the OP has also taken from Mumbai and the claim closure letter has also been issued from Mumbai. In the instant case, the complainant in her complaint has provided the jurisdiction to this Commission by virtue of the registered office of the OP 1.
12. Since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission, neither complainant nor OP resides or works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. We are of the considered view that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence direct the same to be returned to be presented in court of appropriate jurisdiction.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
