BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 27th day of April, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 24/2016
Mrs.D.Shanthi, Rep. by her son and
Power of Attorney Mariappan @
Magesh Kumar ………. Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre,
Kapas Bhavan, Sector No.10,
CBD Belapur, Navi,
MUMBAI – 400 614.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
Baba Towers, No.35, Thennur High Road,
Thennur, Tiruchirapally – 620 017. ……….. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C..No.99/2010, dt.25.10.2016 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.99/2010
Mrs.D.Shanthi, Rep. by her son and
Power of Attorney Mariappan @
Magesh Kumar ………. Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre,
Kapas Bhavan, Sector No.10,
CBD Belapur, Navi,
MUMBAI – 400 614.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
Baba Towers, No.35, Thennur High Road,
Thennur, Tiruchirapally – 620 017. ……….. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru M.Ganapathy,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Tvl.V. Krishnamoorthy &
E.Mani, Advocates, Puducherry
O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 25.10.2016 made in C.C.99/2010.
2. The Complainant before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the opposite parties are respondents.
3. The case put forth by the complainant before the District Forum in nutshell is stated hereunder.
The complainant’s husband one Mr.Deivasigamani has insured his life with 1st opposite party. He attained natural death on 12.09.2008 at his residence at Karaikal and after his death, his wife has forwarded the claim form to the opposite parties for settling the benefits in her favour. However, only a sum of Rs.37,413/- has been settled towards the policy. The rest of the amount was rejected by the opposite parties without any justification. Hence, a lawyer’s notice dt.15.06.2009 was issued calling upon the opposite parties to settle the benefits under the policy. For which, a reply dated 12.12.2009 was received by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint before the District Forum, Puducherry.
4. Reply version has been filed by the 1st opposite party which was adopted by the 2nd opposite party. The brief of the same is extracted hereunder.
Life insurance is a contract of utmost good faith. The deceased life insurer Deivasigamani committed breach of the same by suppressing the material facts, namely, he is suffering from diabetes, prior to the commencement of the risk. Therefore, the nominee was not paid the entire amount.
5. Though an elaborate complaint and reply version has been filed for the disposal of the present appeal, we are not extracting the entire pleadings since the matter has been disposed of by the District Forum only on the point of territorial jurisdiction.
6. After hearing the parties, the District Forum has disposed the complaint finding that there is no territorial jurisdiction to lay the complaint before the District Forum. Assailing the said order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
7. It has to be noted that on the side of the complainant two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the opposite parties one witness was examined. On behalf of the complainant, Exs.C1 to C16 were marked and on behalf of the opposite parties Exs.R1 to R13 were marked.
8. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is an admitted case that policy was taken and premium was paid by the deceased Deivasigamani at Karaikal, within the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, Puducherry. It is also not disputed that the opposite parties are having branch office in Puducherry and the Manager of the Puducherry branch alone gave evidence in this case as RW1. That apart, an elaborate trial was conducted by the District Forum. As pointed out earlier, not only evidence was taken and documents were filed also elaborate trial was conducted. After that the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is no territorial jurisdiction to lay the complaint. As already pointed out by us, the premium was paid at Karaikal and the opposite parties are having Branch Office in Puducherry and the branch manager of Puducherry branch alone has given evidence as RW1.
9. Section 11 of the Act deals with jurisdiction of the District forum, which is extracted hereunder:
“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 lakhs,
(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 time of the institution of the complaint, actually or 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 or 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 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 case of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
10. A combined reading of Section 11 of the Act will disclose that part of cause of action can also be taken into account while deciding jurisdiction. As already stated, premium has been paid in Karaikal which is within the jurisdiction of the consumer forum at Puducherry and the branch office is situated within the jurisdiction of the consumer forum and the branch manager of Puducherry branch has given evidence as RW1. Thus, in our view, the District Forum has got jurisdiction to decide the issues.
11. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in the case, “Seema @ Seema Saini, widow of late Ravinder Pal, Pathankot, Punjab Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. Ghaziabad” held in Para 12 as follows:
“12. It has not been disputed by the opposite parties that the insured died in his village itself, which was within the local limits of jurisdiction of the said District Forum. It was held by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Neelam Singh and others (I(2007) CPJ 365) that the District Forum of the place where the death of the insured takes place has also the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the payment of claim regarding death. “
12. The same view was taken in First Appeal No.7/2007 (Karnataka State Commission) para 23 to 25 are useful to be extracted hereunder:
“23. We shall also bear in mind that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para 17 in Dr.V.N.Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandez (AIR 2011 SC 212) that where the term cause of action has not been defined in an Act, the same has to be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it has been used and object of the legislation. Again, explaining the term cause of action it observed in paras 16 & 17 of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India (AIR 2001 SC 416) that it would be open to a litigant who is the dominus litus to have his forum conveniens and he has the right to go to a court where part of his cause of action arises. Further that, it has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises.
24. To our mind the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. “ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem (AIR 1989 SC 1239) read along with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which we shall discuss later, is of vital value and relevance to decide this matter which is not as complicated as it appears to be at first glance. What the Hon’ble Apex Court held here in paras 13 to 15 is required to be quoted below expansively (underlining ours)
(13) Under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure subject to the limitation stated theretofore, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. It may be remembered that earlier section 7 of the Act 7 of 1888 added explanation III as under
Explanation III In suits arising out of contract the cause of action arises within the meaning of this section at any of the following places, namely
(1) the place where the contract was made
(2) the place where the contract was to be performed or performance thereof completed
(3) the place where in performance of the contract any money to which the suit relates was expressly or impliedly payable.
(14) The above Explanation III has now been omitted but nevertheless it may serve a guide. There must be a connecting factor.
(15) In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the Law of Contract. But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and in a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should (been) performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors.
25. The ratio of this extremely relevant and landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as we can understand, is that, in contractual matters, besides other places, cause of action arises at any of the places where (a) a contract is made or (b) where acceptance of a contract is communicated or (c) where a contract is performed or is to be performed or (d) where money under the contract is either payable or paid; or € where repudiation of a contract is received. Section 11(2) of the C.P.Act being akin to Section 20 C.P.., this clear pronouncement of the law relating to territorial jurisdiction would apply with full force to the Consumer Fora and is thus instrumental in helping us resolve the issue with which we are confronted.”
13. The District Forum has considered the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sonic Surgicals Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.," to come to a conclusion that it has no territorial jurisdiction. However, the said judgment cannot come to the rescue of the respondents for more than one reason. In the matter on hand, the Branch Office is at Puducherry, secondly the evidence was given by the Manager of the Puducherry Branch and thirdly, the territorial jurisdiction should have been raised and contested in the first instance. But, unfortunately, the entire trial was proceeded and completed. Therefore, we are of the view that the facts set out in the present matter on hand is entirely different from the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14. Thus, considering the provisions referred to above and also the judgments cited above coupled with the facts in this case, we are of the considered view that the District Forum has got territorial jurisdiction.
15. One more aspect has to be seen. The claim was filed before the District Forum on 12.10.2010 and it was disposed on 25.10.2016. To drive the parties to approach the other District Forum, obviously after six years, will cause untold hardship to the complainant. The complainant cannot be driven from pillar to post to seek her redressal after several years. The Consumer Protection Act itself is a benevolent provision and the same shall not be put against the complainant for one reason or other. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the District Forum in holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
16. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order and return all records to the District Forum within two weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dated this the 27th day of April, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
