Delhi

StateCommission

A/386/2019

MR. BHARAT CHAWLA ADV. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of hearing : 24.07.2019

Date of Decision : 26.07.2019

 

First Appeal No.386/2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Bharat Chawla s/o. Sh. J. L. Chawla, 90 & 91, Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi-110060

:

Appellant in person

                       

Versus

 

	Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Registered Office) 2ND floor Plot No. C-12, G-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051	:
	Mr. Ramesh Mishra c/o. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 79, Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi-110060	:
	Ms. Priyanka Chaudhary c/o. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 79, Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi-110060

           

CORAM         :           HON’BLE SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

 

 

 

 

ANIL SRIVASTAVA– MEMBER

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1.                   Aggrieved  by the orders dated 07.06.2019 passed by the District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in CC no. 120/2019 in the matter of Sh. Bharat Chawla vs. Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd. dismissing the complaint on the grund that the District Forum does not enjoy the territorial jurisdiction, Sh. Bharat Chawla has preferred this present appeal before this Commission, for short Appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) against Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) assailing the orders so passed on the ground that the order has been passed without appreciating facts and law and praying for setting aside the said orders.

 

2.                   Short question for adjudication in this appeal is whether the District Forum enjoys the territorial jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this case.  I propose to dispose of the appeal a the admission itself without any notice to the respondents as no notice was issued to the OPs by the District Forum. 

 

3.                   Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.

 

4.                   The Appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the Respondent to pay and to compensate the loss of Rs.2,75,440/- suffered by him on account of OPs’ arbitrary and illegal forfeiture of premium amount, which complaint stood dismissed on the ground that the District Forum does not enjoy the territorial jurisdiction.  For this purpose in the first instance I may advert to Section 17 (2) of the Act.  The said provision of the law posits as under:

 

“17. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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, 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 resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission 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”

 

 

5.                   This provision has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported as (2010) 1 SCC 135.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 17 (2) of the Act is pleased to observe as under:

 

“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.“

 

 

6.                   On perusal of the provisions of the Act read with the interpretation of their Lordships, it is obvious that the branch office as per Section 17 (2) of the Act would mean the branch office where the cause of action arose, although in the provision it contemplates branch office or where the casue of action arose.  Cause of action as per the judgement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Santa Banta Company Ltd. vs. Porshe Cars as reported in I (2014) CPJ 516 (NC) gives occasion for and forms the foundation of suit.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Melonie Das vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in I (2014) CPJ 302 (NC) is pleased to hold that the place from where the policy is obtained and premium paid has territorial jurisdiction regardless of whether the corporate office is elsewhere.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in yet another matter, in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lasa Footwear as reported in IV (2012) CPJ 821 (NC) has held that the branch office under amended Section 17 (2) would mean branch office where the cause of action has arisen. 

 

7.                   Coming back to the facts of the case the Appellant present in person has drawn my attention to the office of the agent of the OP/ Respondent situated  at Old Rajindera Nagar, New Delhi.  Secondly the premium is paid by the bank situated at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.  If that be the case sufficient cause of action subsists to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum (Central) regardless of where the Head office of the OP is situated.  To put it differently the condition laid-down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical (Supra) meets the requirement to conclude about the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum.  The District Forum (Central) in the facts and circumstances of the cases does enjoy the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. 

 

8.                   Having regard to the discussion done and the legal position explained I am of the considered view that the District Forum erred in holding that they lack the territorial jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this complaint.  Accordingly the said order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the matter is consequently remanded to the District Forum for fresh adjudication of the matter on merits.  Ordered accordingly.  The Appellant/ OP1 in this case is directed to appear before the concerned District Forum for hearing on 23.08.2019.

 

9.                   Ordered accordingly.

 

10.                   A copy of the order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.  A copy of the order be also sent to concerned District Forum for information and necessary action. 

 

11.                   File be consigned to record.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

Member