DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No: 322 of 2012] Date of Institution | : | 02.07.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 19.07.2012 |
1. Mahesh Parsad s/o late Kesho Mahato, aged 47 years r/o Village Rahimpur, PS Rahui, Distt. Nalanda (Bihar) presently residing at House No.126 HIG, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh (father) 2. Reena Devi w/o late Kapil Kumar @ Kapil Parsad r/o Village Rahimpur, PS Rahui, Distt. Nalanda (Bihar) presently residing at House No.126 HIG, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh (widow). ---Complainants. VersusLife Insurance Corporation of India, through its Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Sector 17A, Chandigarh.---Opposite Party.BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Haredesh Goyal, Advocate for the complainants. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Mahesh Parsad and Ms. Reena Devi have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following reliefs :- a) To make immediate total payment of Rs.two lacs or more as per the policy terms alongwith interest @ 12% one month from the date of accident or settlement of first claim regarding the death of the deceased. b) To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint & mental harassment caused to the complainant.” 2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that one Kapil Kumar got his life insured from the opposite party and purchased a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.512484506. The said policy was taken from the branch office of the opposite party at Biharsharif (Nalanda). During the currency of the said policy, Kapil Kumar died in a railway accident near Ludhiana on 7.11.2009. It has further been pleaded that the said Kapil Kumar kept on paying the premiums regularly and no premium was outstanding against him at the time of his death. The complainants intimated the opposite parties regarding the death of the complainant and requested for payment of the assured amount. However, the opposite parties only paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only to Sh. Mahesh Parsad, complainant No.1, being father of the deceased, and nothing was paid to complainant No.2. It has further been pleaded that even the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh has held that the life assured, Kapil Kumar, died in a railway accident, being a bonafide passenger. According to the complainants, despite repeated requests, the claim of the complainants was rejected by the Biharsharif (Nalanda) Branch of the opposite parties. In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants, at the admission stage, and have gone through the documents on record. 4. From the averments made in the complaint, it is apparent that Sh. Kapil Kumar got his life insured from the Biharsharif (Nalanda) branch office of the opposite parties. He died in an accident which took place at Ludhiana; the claim of the complainants was rejected by the branch office at Biharsharif (Nalanda). In these circumstances, no cause of action took place at Chandigarh. Here we can also refer to the case Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.-IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), and the relevant paras of the same are reproduced 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].” 5. The ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The District Forum at Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 6. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, in limine, for want of territorial jurisdiction. The complainants shall, however, be at liberty to file the complaint in the appropriate District Forum having jurisdiction over the matter. 7. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced19.7.2012Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER hg
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
