Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that daughter of the complainant namely Janak Kaur (now deceased) visited the website of Opposite Party No.3 for the purpose of securing her life and filled the proposal form as per the guidance and directions of the representative of the Opposite Parties. The agent of the Opposite Parties also assisted the DLA through mobile call in filing the proposal form. In this way, daughter of the complainant got her life insured from opposite parties, vide policy bearing No.P/161130/02/2023/002337 for the period 24.06.2022 to 23.06.2022. The policy was for one year and was to be renewed yearly. As per policy, different types of coverage were given and one of the coverage given was accidental death, according to which if the insured died during the continuation of the policy due to accident, then the insurance company will pay Rs.54,00,000/-. Alleged that the complainant was nomine under the said policy. Averred that before the issuance of the policy medical examination of the insured Janak Kaur was also conducted by the Opposite Parties. The confirmation mail regarding successfully conducting of medical examination of the insured was received on 28.06.2022. Only after reviewing the medical examination and documents submitted, the insurance company/Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 agreed to secure the life of Janak Kaur and issued the policy. Averred further that before issuing of the policy, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2/Insurance Company verified the insured by video calling and mobile calling. All the record of the video calling, voice calling and recording is available with the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Averred further that the insured never received the hard copy of the policy. Unfortunately, during the continuation of the Insurance Policy, insured daughter of the complainant expired on 01.11.2022 due to electrocution. Alleged further that when the insured suffered electrocution she was immediately rushed to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where she was declared dead. The post mortem was conducted by the doctors of the Civil Hospital and intimation as per procedure was sent to P.S Sadar Ferozepur. The Police station recorded the entry of DDR vide no.33 dated 01.11.2022. Intimation of the death of the insured was timely intimated to the Opposite Parties and claim was lodged by the complainant seeking death benefits as per the policy. Alleged that the claim was lodged with the Opposite Parties on 06.12.2022. A confirmation email from Opposite Party No.3 was received on 06.12.2022. On 07.12.2022, the complainant received an email from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, confirming the lodging of the claim and they provided the claim intimation number as 227704 and acknowledged the receipt of the email sent by the complainant regarding lodging of the claim. Vide email dated 08.12.2022, the complainant was told to send the hard copies of the documents to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The complainant dispatched the original documents such as Death Certificate, DDR report, Post Mortem, Policy documents etc to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. On the demand of OP No.3, the complainant also shared the courier receipt and courier delivery status on emails. In the beginning, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 assured that the claim of the complainant is under process and they are scrutinizing the documents, but after waiting for 2 months, the complainant called customer care executives to know about the claim status. The complainant provided with claim intimation number 227704 on the asking of customer care executives of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The complainant was shocked to know that the claim intimation number provided by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on email is not valid and the customer care executives refused to provide any further details without claim intimation number. The complainant also wrote an email dated 12.02.2023 about the same to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties vide email dated 15.02.2023 demanded Death certificate which was provided by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant wrote multiple e-mails to Opposite Parties and requested for claim intimation number, but every time, the Opposite Parties got registered the grievance of the complainant, but refused to provide any further details. Alleged further that the complainant himself and through his counsel called on customer care numbers of the Opposite Parties and requested them to settle the claim, but to no effect. On 22.02.2023, the Opposite Parties started demanding ITR returns of the insured daughter of the complainant. It was categorically replied that the daughter of the complainant was not income tax payee, hence no ITR return is available. But to cause mental agony and pain and for the purpose of delaying the payment of the claim, the Opposite Parties kept on demanding ITR returns of the insured. Then the complainant also wrote an email on 04.03.2023 and 06.03.2022 requesting the company to provide the IRDA guidelines in which it has been stated that ITR returns are mandatory to settle the accidental death claim. The complainant again wrote emails on 06.03.2023 requesting the Opposite Parties to decide the claim on the given documents, but all in vain. Alleged further that the complainant registered the claim through all the modes, but despite that Opposite Parties failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Due to such act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to settle and the claim of the insurance policy in question by way of accepting the claim lodged and to pay all the insured amount of Rs.54,00,000/- alongwith all the assured death benefits.

b)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental torture and agony.

c)       To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses as well as counsel fee.

d)      Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim as per IRDA rules and guidelines.

e)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under C.P. Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Submitted that the Proposer had submitted the Proposal Form through Online Portal to commence the ‘Accident Care individual Policy’. Based on the declaration made in the Proposal, the Accident Care Individual Insurance Policy was generated to the insured, vide Policy No.P/161130/02/2023/002337 for the period 24.06.2022 to 23.06.2023 for a Sum Insured of Rs.54,00,000/-. The said policy was generated by the System based, on the documents and declaration made by the insured. Meanwhile, the Proposal Form along with the Income Proof was verified by the Brach office. On verification, it is noted that the insured had declared the Occupation as Agriculturalist, Income as Rs.30,000/- and uploaded Wrong documents under Income Proof instead of Income Tax Returns. Hence, query was raised to submit the ITR whereas the same was not submitted by the Insured. Thus, the Policy was on hold. Averred that meanwhile, the complainant had tried to intimate the claim under the said in the month of December '22. The System had not allowed to generate the Claim Number since the insured had not submitted ITR (Income Tax Returns). Hence, once again query was raised to submit the ITR and the complainant in return had replied vide mail dated 22.02.2023 stating that the insured was not an income tax payee and hence no ITR available. From the above reply/statement of the complainant, it is revealed that the insured had opted for the policy by stating false statement. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. As such, there was a manifest misrepresentation of material facts, since he had uploaded a wrong attachment in place of Income Proof.

 Averred further that since the insured had opted policy through Online Portal, the answering opposite party was not in a position to evaluate the documents submitted. As per Condition 6 of the Policy- Disclosure to information norms, the policy shall become void and all premium paid thereon shall be forfeited to the Company, in the event of misrepresentation, mis-description or non-disclosure of any material fact by the policy holder. In the instant case, insured had opted the policy by providing wrong statement in respect of the Monthly Income and Income Proof of the insured by misleading the company which amounts to mis-representation of the facts. Averred further that the complainant has filed this complaint vexatiously and frivolously for the sole purpose of harassing the opposite parties with the intention for getting unlawful enrichment from the opposite parties. Answering Opposite Parties have reproduced the Investigation Report Status, which is as under:-

Investigation Report States:

A. The team visited the residence of Sh. Mangal Singh interacted with him and also met several villagers and following facts have come to light.

a. Interaction with S/ Sh. Chaman and Devender revealed that Ms Janak Kaur daughter of Sh.Mangal Singh was suffering from some ailment for last 1-2 days and she died of weakness.

b. Interaction with Sh. Lakhvinder Singh who works as construction labourer revealed that Ms Janak Kaur had died of illness and he was not knowing as to where from she was being treated.

c. A shopkeeper just running a shop opposite the residence of Sh. Mangal Singh confirmed that Ms Janak Kaur died of illness and he was unaware as to where from she was taking treatment.

d. Further, the team interacted with Sh. Mangal Singh at his house. The house is in a badly depilated position. There were no items available in the house. The kitchen was only nominal one with few utensils as is evident from the photograph. During interaction he stated that his daughter got electrocuted while heating water and did not provide further information. No electric heater was found available. Further, some points which have come during interaction are listed below.

i.        He confirmed that his daughter was ill for a month prior to her death but he did not consult any Dr and was providing medicines to her.

ii.       He confirmed that his daughter had loose motions and she would pass on the loose motion while on the bed and also on his coat while he was holding her in her lap.

iii.      He confirmed that he is not in possession of any documents like FIR . Police report/ Post mortem report or Policy.

iv.      He confirmed that documents are with one Ratan and Ramesh and his daughter's policy was incepted by one Ratan Singh.

v.       He further confirmed that prior to her death she was suffering from fever.

vi.      He informed that he is not using any mobile phone and is not having any mobile number etc.

vii.     Regarding his profession, he informed that he is by profession a labourer earning Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/daily.

viii. Sh. Mangal Singh is not having any credit card. He does not have a mobile phone. No ITR/ Income proof was provided by him.

B.      The team also visited Sadat PS Ferozepur and got the copy of GD Entry no 033 dated 01.11.2022. The senior officers were not in the PS due to emergency arising out of Amritpal Singh's possible arrest. The I/C record room also confirmed that only 174 CrPC proceedings have been completed as the family in writing informed that they do not want any investigation in this case.

C.      In the policy documents, mobile number available is 9592486097 and this mobile relates to one Sam Masih son of Prem Masih SAHIB TARN TARAN (PUINJAB).

D.      Payment of premium was paid through link made through Google Pe (Tez) vide transaction number 15395036106 and as such account no from the premium was deducted could not be ascertained.

E.      The team visited Civil Hospital, Firozepur but could not get any type of information for want of the records. The father could have thrown light on the aspect had in unequivocal terms that he was not in possession of documents related to his daughter's death all documents are with Sh.Ratan Singh who got her policy.

F.      Further, in this case that email IDStaradmin@starinsurance.in which the Advocate of claimant claims to have received the confirmation with regard to receipt documents does not pertain to Star Health Insurance Co. and in addition to this, other email ID cited by him support@girnarinsurance.com is also not related to their company.

On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that on 6 December 2022, the complainant requested the answering Opposite Parties to assist in intimating a death claim under the Policy to Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.. Pursuant to receipt of the said request, the answering Opposite Parties tried contacting the complainant on his personal contact number, 9592486097 ("1^st Contact Number"), however, no response was received from the complainant's end. Thereafter on 8^th December 2022, they contacted the complainant and the Answering Respondent intimated the Complainant's Claim to the Opposite Party No.1 and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to assist the complainant in processing the claim. Pursuant to receipt of the Answering Respondent’s email, the Opposite Party No.1 requested hard copies of the Claim Documents to process the complainant's claim and the Answering Respondent intimated this request to the complainant to share the proof of dispatch. On 27, December 2022, the complainant confirmed dispatch of the Claim Documents through Blue Dart Express Limited, which the Answering Respondent later shared with the Opposite Party No.1. On 4 January 2023, the Answering Respondent sent an email to the complainant stating that "... Your document had been delivered as per your courier provider kindly allow some time so that we can acknowledge the same from insurance company...". Thereafter, the answering respondent regularly followed up with the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the delivery status of the Complainant's Claim Documents and was informed that the documents had not been delivered. Then on 10^th January 2023, the Answering Respondent requested the complainant to seek a clarification from the courier service provider, Blue Dart and in response, the complainant sent an email to the Answering Respondent stating that "Courier receipt has been shared with you on dated 28.12.2022. Then, the Answering Respondent sent emails to the complainant reiterating its request for seeking a clarification from Blue Dart. Thereafter, the Answering Respondent also sent emails on the different dates reiterating its previous requests. In the intervening period, on 21^st January 2023, the Opposite Party No.1 confirmed receipt of the Claim Documents. The Answering Respondent No.3 conveyed this confirmation to the complainant. The complainant was also requested to liaise with the Opposite Party No.1 for intimating the insurance claim and to share the claim intimation number generated after the said intimation with the Answering Respondent. On 25^th January 2023, the complainant provided the claim intimation number "227704", which was shared with the Opposite Party No.1 by the Answering Respondent on the same day. Subsequently, through email dated 27^th January 2023, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Answering Respondent that the said claim intimation number was incorrect. Thereafter, Answering Respondent made multiple requests to the complainant on different dates to share the claim intimation number. Subsequently, on 20^th February 2023, the complainant through its counsel sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party No. 1 as well as the Answering Respondents in relation to his insurance claim under the Policy and the Answering Respondents furnished a detailed response to the complainant's notice through letter dated 28^th March 2023. On 22^nd February 2023, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Answering Respondent No.3 that in order to process the Complainant's Claim, the Insured's Income Tax Return certificate was mandatorily required. This request was conveyed to the Complainant. However, through email dated 23 February 2023, the Complainant stated that "The insured was not having any ITR and was not income tax payee". The Answering Respondent No. 3 shared the Complainant's statement with the Opposite Party No.1. Subsequently, the complainant sent multiple emails to the Answering Respondent No.3 on different dates demanding settlement of the claim, the complainant was informed that the claim is under verification/investigation.

4.       In order to prove the case, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C45, Rejoinder in the shape of affidavit of complainant as Ex.C46, copy of application written to S.H.O, P.S. Sadar, Ferozepur Ex.C47, affidavit of Sh.Mangal Singh alongwith Aadhar Card as Ex.C48 and Ex.C49, affidavit of Sh.Bhag Singh alongwith Aadhar Card as Ex.C50 and Ex.C51, affidavit of Sh.Kulwinder Singh alongwith Aadhar Card as Ex.C52 and Ex.C53, affidavit of Sh.Swaran Singh alongwith Aadhar Card as Ex.C54 & Ex.C55, affidavit of Sh.Paramjeet Singh alongwith Aadhar Card as Ex.C56 & Ex.C57, affidavit of Smt.Gurmej Kaur alongwith Aadhar Card as Ex.C58 & Ex.C59, copy of terms and conditions as Ex.C60, copy of legal notice Ex.C61, details of the cases Ex.C62 and copies of other documents Ex.C63 to Ex.C65.

5.       On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Sumit Kumar Sharma, Senior Manager, Star Health & Allied Ins. Co. Ltd. as Ex.OP1,2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1,2/14. Whereas, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 has placed on record affidavit of Smt.Priya Mishra, Authorized Representative as Ex.OP3,4/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3,4/1 to Ex.OP3,4/17.

6.       We have heard the ld. counsel for parties, gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of all the parties and also gone through the record.

7.       Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the present complaint has been filed by the father of the insured namely Janak Kaur (now deceased), who obtained the policy from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 bearing No.P/161130/02/2023/002337 for the period 24.06.2022 to 23.06.2022 for herself and the complainant was nominee under the said policy. Argued further that during the currency of the policy in question, the insured expired on 01.11.2022 due to electrocution and intimation regarding the said incident was given to P.S. Sadar, Ferozepur and DDR vide no.33 dated 01.11.2022 was also registered. Post mortem was also conducted by the doctors of the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were also timely intimated. Argued further that claim under the said policy was lodged with Opposite Parties by the father of the insured i.e. present complainant being nominee claiming death claim of Rs.54,000/-, which till date has not been paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Thus, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer that Opposite Parties may be directed to insured amount of Rs.54,00,000/- alongwith all the assured death benefits.

8.       During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 has mainly raised the objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Argued further that the policy holder (now deceased) obtained the ‘Accident Care Individual Insurance Policy’ in question through online, vide Policy No.P/161130/02/2023/002337 for the period 24.06.2022 to 23.06.2023 for a Sum Insured of Rs.54,00,000/-. The said policy was generated by System based, on the documents and declaration made by the insured. Meanwhile, the Proposal Form along with the Income Proof was verified by the Brach office. On verification, it is noted that the insured had declared the Occupation as Agriculturalist, Income as Rs.30,000/- and uploaded Wrong documents under Income Proof instead of Income Tax Returns. Hence, policy holder query was raised to submit the ITR whereas the same was not submitted by the Insured. The policy holder (now deceased) was repeatedly asked to supply the ITR (Income Tax Returns), which was never supplied by her. Thus, the Policy was on hold. Argued further that if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that policy in question has been issued in the name of the daughter of the complainant, in that case also the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay the claim, as the policy in question has been obtained by misrepresentation as on demand of ITR, the complainant had replied vide mail dated 22.02.2023 that the insured was not an income tax payee and hence no ITR available. From the above reply/statement of the complainant, it is revealed that the insured had opted for the policy by stating false statement.

9.       Ld. counsel for Opposite Party No.3 argued that Opposite Party No.3 operates an online insurance portal namely www.insurancedekho.com, which enables users to purchase insurance policies from varying insurance companies/insurers, which are best suited to their needs and requirements. They are only mediator between the insured and insurer. Argued further that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against it.

10.     We have considered the oral as well written submissions of the parties and also gone through the record. Before we go into the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to look into the matter qua territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to deal with the instant complaint. After considering all the facts and after meticulously going through the record made available by the parties before this Commission, we are of the concerted view that this District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

Admittedly complainant’s daughter (now deceased) has obtained the policy in question from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, through online and perusal of the policy (Ex.C1) further reveals that it was issued by Gurgaon Office, as in the policy in question address of the policy issuing office is mentioned as “412/2, K-1 Tower, M.G. Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana”. In the Aadhar Card of Janak Kaur i.e. insured/policy holder (now deceased) (Ex.C2) reveals that  the address of the insured is mentioned as D/o Mangal Singh, Jhuge Kesar Singh Wale, Ferozepur (Village), Ferozepur City, Ferozepur and she applied for the alleged policy in question through online only. Further it is evident vide Aadhar Card Ex.C3 that the present complainant i.e. nominee under the policy in question is also resident of District Ferozepur as his address is mentioned as S/o Lal Singh, Village Jhuge Kesar Singh Wale, Bare Ke, Ferozepur. Further from the record available, it is evident that death of the deceased policy holder occurred in District Ferozepur allegedly the death being occurred due to electrocution. DDR placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C9 reveals that the incident of the death has been reported at Police Station, Sadar, Ferozepur. Death certificate of the deceased policy holder (Ex.C6) reveals that the death of the deceased policy holder was registered in the death register of District Registrar(SMO), Birth and Death Block Mamdot, Tehsil Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. (Ex.C7) is evident of the fact that Post Mortem of the deceased policy holder was also conducted at Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. Complainant vide present complaint averred that the claim under the policy in question has been lodged with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, through online, whereas as per Ex.C61 i.e. Legal Notice sent by counsel for the complainant to Opposite Parties, it has been mentioned that claim under the policy in question was lodged at Ludhiana. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para of legal notice is reproduced as under:-

“My Client lodged the claim regarding the policy with your branch at Ludhiana and submitted all the documents such as KYC record, Post Mortem, Police record (DDF) and Original Policy Documents. It was assured to my client at the time of lodging the claim that the claim will be processed and payment will be credited to the bank account within 30 days maximum.”

Perusal of legal notice further reveals that the said legal notice has been served on the insurance company having branch offices at Chennai & Tamil Nandu, and also been served to  Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 at Jaipur & Ludhiana. No legal notice has been served to branch office of insurance company at Moga giving any cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint before this District Commission. Complainant has also placed on record affidavits of persons namely Bhag Singh, Nambardar (Ex.C50), Kulwinder Singh s/o Bohar Singh (Ex.C52), Swaran Singh s/o Pyara Singh (Ex.C54), Paramjeet Singh s/o Puran Singh (Ex.C56), Gurmej Kaur w/o Satnam Singh, Member of Panchayat (Ex.C58), who all belongs to Village Jhuge Kesar Singh Wala, District Ferozepur. Perusal of the record further reveals that Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 duly replied to the legal notice of the complainant and the same was served to the counsel for the complainant at Ferozepur on the address as follows:- Exceisior Legal Services & Solutions, The Law Office of Advocate Ranvik Mehta, Punjab & Haryana High Court, New Chamber No.139, Block-B, District Courts, Ferozepur (Punjab).

From the evident facts as narrated above, we hardly found any of the fact favouring the complainant to file the present complaint at District Commission, Moga. None of the cause of action or any part of cause of action ever accrued in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission, Moga. Neither there is iota of evidence on record revealing that claim under the policy in question has been lodged or processed at Moga branch of the Opposite Parties.

11.     Our view is well guided by the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.10.2009, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed the following orders :-

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.

One of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly) while a Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of IFB Automotive Seating and System Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India AIR 2003 Calcutta, 80 has dealt with the question as to the meaning of the expression 'cause of action'. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2002 SC 126, in para 40 of the said judgment it has been observed as under :

"In Adani Exports (AIR 2002 SC 126) (supra) the learned Judges in para 13 set out the facts pleaded by the petitioner to give rise to cause of action conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Court at Ahmedabad. One of the facts pleaded is that non-granting and denial utilization of the credit in the pass book will affect the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad. This fact is not pleaded in the case in hand.

Even then the learned Judges held that those facts are not sufficient to furnish a cause of action as they are not connected with the relief sought for by the respondents.

Here also the relief is against the orders of approval and this High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to grant that relief. Therefore, the communication to the effect that the petitioners' representation against orders of approval is rejected is of no consequence.

The Supreme Court, further dealing the concept of Aritcle 226(2) and relying on the decision of ONGC (1994 AIR SCW 3287), explained the concept of cause of action in para 17 at page 130 of the report and the relevant extracts wherefrom are excerpted below:"It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.

12.     Reliance in this regard is also placed upon latest pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Jiwan Spinners Pvt. Ltd Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I(2024) CPJ 5 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon'ble National Commission that “Territorial jurisdiction is clearly ordained by the legislature that cannot be stretched beyond territorial limits through legal gymnastics. Further in the said judgement, while dealing with Sonic Surgical, it has been quoated as under:-

“21. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the plaintiff wants to determine the jurisdiction based on the branch office, some cause of action should have arisen within the place where the branch office is situated. To give such a purposive interpretation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took cue from Section 20, CPC. It is very clear from the judgement that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not interpreting Section 134(2) of the Act and 62(2) of the Copyright Act qua Section 20, CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was trying to find a solution in cases where the plaintiff only places reliance upon the branch office and nothing more. In such cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by purposive interpretation held that there must be at least a part of the cause of action that should have arisen in the place where the branch office is situated.

13.     Reiterated that the complainant has failed to file any proof or document which shows any cause of action or any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. As discussed above, the facts leave no room for doubt that no cause of action ever accrued to the policy holder within the jurisdiction of this District Commission and for the reasons best known to the complainant, he chose a Commission that is coram non judice. Hence this commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

14.     Also the Commission having the appropriate jurisdiction to decide the present complaint is competent to enquire about the authenticity of the affidavits placed on record by the complainant as in all the affidavits (Ex.C50, Ex.C52, Ex.C54, Ex.C58) except affidavit of Paramjeet Singh (Ex.C56) placed on record by the complainant in order to establish his case, the name of the deponents have been added by applying white fluid without initial for the reasons best known to the complainant.

15.     Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as being guided by the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) as well judgement of Hon’ble National Commission (supra), the instant complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable for want of Territorial Jurisdiction. However, the complainant shall be free to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate District Commission as per law, for which the time spent before this Forum shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs. The pending application (s), if any also stands disposed of. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission