Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1116/2011

Pushpa Devi & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.1116/2011

 

1. Smt. Pushpa Devi,

         W/o Late Sh. Arjun Singh.

 

2. Alka Kumari,

         D/o Late Sh. Arjun Singh.

 

3. Parveen Kumar,

           S/o Late Sh. Arjun Singh.

 

4. Ashu Kumar,

         S/o Late Sh. Arjun Singh.

 

5. Raja Kumar,

          S/o Late Sh. Arjun Singh,

           All r/O 208, Ekta Vihar,

            Loni Ghaziabad, UP.

 

6. Smt. Sonvati,

          W/o Sh. Ram Sharan,

          R/o H.No.338, Auledha,

         Tehsil & Distt. Bulandshahar, UP

 

(Complainant No.3-5 being minor represented through

their mother i.e. complainant No.1).

…..Complainants

Vs.

 

1. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,

          25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi

 

         Also at:

         Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,

         2^nd Floor , Amrit Jeevan bhawan,

          New Jeevan Trust Building,

         Port Nav Jeevan, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.

 

2. Prabhat Sanitaryware Pvt. Ltd.,

          D-2, SMA Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd.,

          GT Karnal Road, Delhi.

 

3. Gujrat Institute of Civil Engineering & Architect,

          Nirman Bhawan, Opp. Law Garden,

           ELLIS Bridge, Ahmedabad-6.

….Opposite Parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.  The gist of the complaint is that OP-3 had organized an exhibition/event  under the name and style of 23^rd Exhibition Gujrat Growth Plan Nirman 2008”  wherein the OP-2 also participated.  The above said event was duly insured  with OP-1 vide policy No.141500/48/2009/2348 and it was liable for all the untoward events.  During the event, the husband of the complainant No.1 died on 24.11.2008 as one of the AC installed in the exhibition felt down upon him and       he had been crushed under the same.  A police complainant was lodged  and the postmortem report was handed over to the complainant.  After the death of deceased, Sh. Arjun Singh, an intimation vide letter dt. 27.11.2008 was issued to OP-1 through OP-3 for the claim of the complainant but OP-1 failed to pay the same. As the complainants failed to get the payment, she wrote a letter dt. 16.11.2009, in reply to the same, OP-1  stated that they have not received any information from the OP-2 & 3 till date and also stated that this  kind of public liability and this type of claims are dealt in the court.   Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dt. 14.12.2009,  OP-1 sent a reply to the said legal notice stating that no details  regarding the death of DLA was furnished to them by OP-2 & 3. Non-settlement of claim of     complainant  amounts to deficiency in service, hence, this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP-1 & 2.  They filed their written statement,  denying  any deficiency in service on their part.  It is stated by OP-1 that there is a clear violation of the policy terms and condition.  As per clause (a) of the policy the claim is payable “for death of or bodily injuries to or any illness of any person not being a member of the insured family or engaged in the services of insured or for any sub-contractor of the insured”.  Hence, alleged death is outside the purview of this policy and hence not payable.  It is also stated that the   present complaint is hopelessly time barred, the same be rejected on this alone ground.

3.     OP-2 has stated in its written statement that although the deceased was employee of OP-2, but no cause of action arose against it, as the event was organized by OP-3 and OP-2 had only participated in the same.  It is further stated that no relief has been claimed against OP-2, the present complaint be dismissed on this ground alone.

4.     All the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

5.     We have heard argument advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     The counsel for OP has strongly challenged the question of limitation hence, need to be decided first.   Perusal of the file shows that the  deceased died on 24.11.2008 and intimation of the same was given to OP Insurance Co. on 27.11.2008.  The OP Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dt. 27.11.2009. Against the repudiation, the complainant filed the consumer complaint bearing No.253/10 before Hon’ble State Commission, however, due to some technical defect, the complainant withdrawn the same on 31.5.2011 and filed before this Forum on 24.11.2011, hence, the present complaint is well within limitation and the objection of OP regarding limitation stands dismissed.

7.     Besides limitation, OP-1 has taken the objection of Territorial jurisdiction in which it is stated that the policy was issued from the Ahmadabad office of OP-1 Co., the cause of action also arose at Ahmadabad, as the claim of the complainant was repudiated from the Ahmadabad office of OP-1 Co. and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

8.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The perusal of the file shows that the  policy was issued from the Ahmadabad office of OP-1 Co., the cause of action also arose at Ahmadabad, as the claim of the complainant was repudiated from the Ahmadabad office of OP-1 Co. which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, the address of OP-1 given in the arrays of the parties pertains to the office not falling within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that  the cause of action if any accrued  from the office of the OPs falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

      On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“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.”

 

9.     We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical case (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 17/12/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                   (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

                                          MEMBER                                                   MEMB