Delhi

New Delhi

CC/737/2016

Manickava Shunmugaraja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC/737/2016                                                                   Dated:

IN THE  MATTER OF :-

Sh. Manickava Shunmugaraja

A-402, Garden Apartments,

Sector 4, Vaishali,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201010

……COMPLAINANT

Versus

 

M/S. Bajaj Allanz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Dr Gopaldas Bhawan,

12^th Floor, 28 Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001

 

       .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging in brief that he being a senior citizen obtained a Travel Insurance Policy from the OP insurance company before going to Sydney, Australia. He paid the premium of the said insurance policy. In Sydney complaint was hospitalised as he suffered a sudden heart attack. The complainant incurred medical expenses there and has filed the insurance claim against the OP insurance company, which was not granted to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has claimed the direction to the OP insurance company to settle the claim of complainant in the sum of Rs. 12, 22, 000/– along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as well as damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/–. He has also claimed the compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/– from the OP insurance company on account of mental agony and harassment.

 

 

The arguments on admission of the complaint were heard and the question of jurisdiction cropped up.

 

We have carefully gone through the record of the complaint case, relevant provisions of law. The perusal of the insurance policy in question shows that it was issued by the Pune office of the OP insurance company. The email correspondence of complainant is also with the OP insurance company at its Pune office.

 

Similar question directly, arose before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Wg. Com. P. Kosalairaman versus Chief Executive M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd. and others in Revision Petition No. 1567 of 2012, wherein the State Commission of Coimbatore on the facts that the alleged defective item was purchased in Bhatinda has held that Bhatinda Court has jurisdiction to try the complaint case. In holding this State Commission Coimbatore relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 1V. (2009) CPJ. 40 (SC) wherein it was held that in order to invoke jurisdiction against the branch office, cause of action should have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Consumer Forum, where the branch office of the O.P. is available. The Ho’ble National Commission in P. Kosalairaman's case (supra) holding that the provisions of CPC have limited application so far proceedings of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are concerned confirmed the order of State Commission that the for a  at  Coimbatore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also held that complaint, be returned to the complainant, who was also given liberty to file the complaint before District Forum at Bhatinda.

 

 

In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the following observations were made:

 

“Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.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 Ld.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]

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

In Rajan Kapoor versus Estate Officer and another Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 4/11/2011, the following observations were made:

 

“Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Panchkula, in as much as application for allotment was made by the complainant to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer.  Even if one or two letters/ representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Administrator HUDA, it would not make a difference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum.  We are, therefore, of the view that order of the State Commission so far as it directed the complainant- petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.  Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party.”

 

 

In Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd versus Kone Elevator's India Private limited, and another I (2016) CPJ 190 (NC),  the plea of the complainant that cause of action arose when, legal notice was sent to opposite party was not accepted, and it was held that merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action, nor does it extend the period of limitation.

 

In the light of the above law it is amply clear that the complainant is required to file the complaint before the District Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action arose coupled with the fact that head office and/or  the branch office of the company in question is also situated there. Mere sending of a legal notice or one or two letters to the head office of OP one would not constitute cause of action or attract the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. In the light of a Rajan Kapoor's case (supra) and Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd's case (supra).

 

In the light of above will law laid down in the above authorities and the fact that the insurance policy in question was issued by the Pune office of the OP insurance company and not New Delhi office of the insurance company and correspondence was also made by complainant with the Pune office of the OP insurance company and no part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum the territorial jurisdiction of this New Delhi District Forum is not attracted.  Merely because the legal notices were sent to/ addressed by the complainant at several offices of the OP insurance company, including the one which falls within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum does not create territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum in the light of Rajan Kapoor's case (supra) and Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Therefore, holding that this District Forum does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint, we direct the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presentation of the same to the competent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Before returning the original complaint and documents their copies be kept for record. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

File be consigned to the record room.

   Pronounced in open Forum on                                         .

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                              (H M VYAS)

                                                 MEMBER                                                      MEMBER