// ORDER ON APPLICATION OF MAINTAINABILITY ON GROUND OF JURISDICTION //
An application is filed by the OP challenging the maintainability of this case on the ground of Jurisdiction.
2. According to the OP the complaint is that the complaint is barred by jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum as Consumer matters are summary proceedings and any case of fraud and cheating needs detailed trial. Hence only civil and criminal courts have such jurisdiction.
It is further submitted that OP had also filed the police complaint against the complainant before Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Ballari having FIR No. 0207 of 2014 which was registered under Section – 200, 511 and 420 of IPC and the same has been under investigation.
It is also further submitted that complainant knowingly and inadvertently filed this case even after mentioning the territorial jurisdiction (as per clause 108 “Governing law and Jurisdiction of Policy Terms and Conditions) in case of any disputes, further contract of life Insurance is executed in Ballari and if at all any cause of action arisen then it should be the appropriate court of Ballari not at Koppal.
The OP further submitted that OP does not have any office in the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence case is barred by the territorial jurisdiction as per Sec. 11 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
2. Counsel for the complainant filed identical objections to present application.
The objections are as under;
That the complainant is the resident of the Gangavathi taluk and the death of the complainant’s wife is occurred in Gangavathi only. It is further contended that the Insurance Company, Bank Branch is at Gangavathi only and the said insurance policy is issued by the OP bank branch of Gangavathi only. Hence the Hon’ble Forum has the jurisdiction.
3. Heard the argument of both counsels for OP and complainant.
4. The following points arise for our consideration of this Forum;
- Whether the OP proves that the petition is barred by Jurisdiction?
- What order?
5. Answers to the above points are as under;
Point No. 1 : Affirmative
Point No. 2 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
6. POINT No. 1: The counsel for the OP vehemently argued before the Forum that regarding the jurisdiction. The OP in their application stated that (as per Clause 10.8 “Governing Law and Jurisdiction” of policy terms and conditions) in case of any dispute, the exclusive Jurisdiction of the courts of law within whose territorial jurisdiction the registered office of the company is situated and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.
On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant that ING Vysya Bank Ltd., branch is existing in the Koppal and ING Vysya Life renamed as Exide Life Insurance. The above changes in the name is no way helpful to the complainant and there is no registered office of Insurance in Koppal only ING Vysya Bank is existing.
Further on perusal of the documents submitted by the OP, it is crystal clear that the policy has been issued at Ballari and cause of action arises at the place where the policy has been issued. The complainant have taken the above said defence in this case that the complainant’s death has occurred in Gangavathi and has the territorial jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the complainant draws attention of this Forum to the citation passed by the Hon’ble Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Neelam Singh and Others reported in I (2007) CPJ 365
“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 11 – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Hence complaint – Contention of OP, Forum at ‘S’ not having jurisdiction to entertain complaint – Rejected – Though policy issued by Bilaspur office, death of insured occurred within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum ‘S’ – Insurer liable.”
The above citation is not applicable to the case in hand.
In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 CTJ 2 (CP) (Sonie Surgicals V/s National Insurance Co.Ltd., Wherein it is held that “cause of action – Insurance – Consumer Protection Act – 1986 – Section 17(2) – Expression ‘Cause of action means a bundle of facts giving rise to a light or liability’ Branch office in Section 17 (2) means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. It does not mean that a complaint against the insurer could have been filed anywhere in India, wherever it had a branch office.
It is held that the cause of action arises immediately after the issuance of the policy, where it is clear that the policy has been issued in Ballari and when the question of jurisdiction arises the first important point is to see is where the cause of action has arosed. Keeping in view of Sec. 11 of Consumer Protection Act, jurisdiction of the District Forum.
“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum :- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty laksh].
(2) A Complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum 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 of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily 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 reside, or [carriers on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.”
It is clear that, there must be cause of action wholly or in part arises. In the absence of the above said fact, the contention of the complainant is not accepted. Hence in the light of above observations, we constrained to hold point No.1 in affirmative.
Point No. 2 :- Hence, in the result, we proceed to pass the following;
// ORDER //
As this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it is ordered to return the complaint along with all documents to the complainant and get the reliefs before Fora of Ballari.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 12th day of January 2016.
