STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Mrs.Harjinder Kaur, resident of H.No.3019/2, Sector 44, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.    The Associate Director Operations, AVIVA Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.180-182, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

2.    The Managing Director, AVIVA Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., 5th floor, JMD Regent Square, Gurgaon – Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 Haryana (India).

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.J.R.Syal, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), on the ground, that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the same.

2.              The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant took an insurance policy bearing No.LLG1239653 under plan “Life Long-Unit Linked” from the Opposite Parties, commencing from 01.06.2006, for the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/-. The annual premium, which was to be paid, in respect of the said policy was Rs.25,000/-. The allocation rate, as per the policy schedule was 101%.  It was stated that as per the policy accounts statement dated 7.1.2011, an amount of Rs.1,38,142/- was shown to be in the credit of the policy holder. It was further stated that according to the illustration “Benefits of Policy”, the gross investment return had been shown to be 10%. It was further stated that the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, in five installments, and, as such, she was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,37,500/-, after the expiry of the said policy period(five years). When the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, for maturity benefits after 5 years, she was told that she was entitled to Rs.81,000/-  only. A legal notice dated 25.7.2010 (infact 25.07.2011) was sent to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their written version, pleaded that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as the proposal form was filled by the complainant at Mohali and the policy documents were issued by Gurgaon Office of the Opposite Parties. It was further pleaded that, thus, no cause of action arose at  Chandigarh. It was stated that the complaint was barred by time. It was further stated that the complaint was not maintainable. It was admitted that the complainant, obtained the policy, referred to above. It was further stated that the complainant, filled and signed the proposal form, after going through its key features, as well as all other terms & conditions of the policy. It was admitted that she paid premium for 5 years, but did not pay further premiums on due dates. It was further stated that the details of the policy were being sent regularly to the complainant and she was well aware of the specifications & implications of the same. It was further stated that, in case, she was dissatisfied with the policy terms & conditions, she had the right to cancel the same, within the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy documents, but no such option, was exercised by her. It was further stated that it was a Unit-Linked Policy, subject to market risks. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never provided any assurance or guarantee, about the returns of the funds. It was further stated that on surrender of the policy after 5 years, she could only be granted surrender value thereof,  as per the terms and conditions of the same. It was further stated that the policy became “Paid Up” on 1.7.2011, due to non- payment of renewal premium. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order.  

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that, no doubt, the proposal form was filled in by the complainant at Mohali, and the policy documents were issued by Gurgaon office of the Opposite Parties, yet, the statement of account was issued by the Branch office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh, to her. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in coming to the conclusion, that it had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from Annexure R-1, copy of the proposal form, that the same was filled in by the complainant on 22.05.2006, at Mohali, a Revenue District, falling in the State of Punjab. The policy documents were issued by Gurgaon office of the Opposite Parties. The payment of premiums was also made at Mohali. No doubt, the Opposite Parties had their Branch Office at Chandigarh, yet, mere existence thereof,  at Chandigarh, until or unless, some other transaction took place, between the parties at that place, did not confer any territorial jurisdiction upon the District Forum, at Chandigarh. Reliance was placed by the Counsel for the appellant, on Annexure C-2, a document, to establish that it being an accounts statement was issued by the Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. However, a perusal of Annexure C-2, does not, in any way, establishes that it was issued at Chandigarh. This is only a computer generated statement. In this document, the address of the Registered Office of the Opposite Parties, is mentioned as Second floor, Prakashdeep building 7, Toiestoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. There is nothing, in this document, showing that it was issued by the Branch Office of the Opposite Parties, at Chandigarh. No doubt, an averment, was made, in the complaint that the services of the Opposite Parties were availed of by the complainant, through their Advisor at Chandigarh. However, such averment merely remained a bald assertion. No tangible evidence was produced, that the services of the said Advisor, were availed of at Chandigarh. In M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (SC) 2010 (1) RCR Civil (1), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that the mere fact that the Opposite Parties had its Branch Office, at a certain place, did not confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum or the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, situated at that place, to entertain the complaint/appeal and decide the same. It was further held, in the aforesaid authority that, it must be, established that a part of cause of action accrued, within the territorial Jurisdiction of the place, where the Branch Office was situated, to confer Jurisdiction. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to facts of the instant case. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that since, no cause of action, arose to the complainant, to file the complaint, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh, it had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. The order of the District Forum, thus, being legal and valid is liable to be upheld.

10.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

11.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

April 16, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg