DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/10/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Ms. Sushila Devi
S/o Sh. Raj Pal Singh
R/o T – 79 – 79 A, Village Rajpura,
Gur Mandi, Model Town, Delhi
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its office at : 7 : E, Jhandewalan Extn.,
Din Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110055
Through it’s Manager
2. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited
Having it’s Registered office
Mookambika Complex, 3rd Floor,
4, Lady Dashika Road, Mylapor Chennai
And it’s branch office at
431/64/1, Ground Floor,
LDA Trust Estate, Kewal Park Extn., Azadpur,
New Delhi - 110033
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Ms. Sushila Devi (In short the complainant) filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) pleading therein that she is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration
no. HR-55 D 4236 which was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd.
(in short the OP 1) vide policy bearing no. 53070631150100000200 for the
period of 09.04.2015 to 08.04.2016. The said vehicle was financed by Shri Ram General Insurance Company (in short the OP 2). At the time of finance of the vehicle OP 2 obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank/printed/stamp papers on the pretext of completing some formalities. The vehicle in question was stolen in the month of April 2015. An FIR No. 415/15 under section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Basistha Distt. Kamrup, Assam on 26.04.2015. Theft was reported to OP telephonically. OP 2 initiated arbitration proceedings against the complainant bearing No. RKVR16/2015 without serving any notice upon the complainant and without impleading OP 1 as a party. Instant complaint is filed to
a) ‘‘direct respondent no. 1 to pay the Principal financed amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- along with due interest / remaining EMIs after deducting/ adjusting already paid amount of Rs. 2,42,500/- by the complainant, to the respondent no. 2 in respect of the vehicle in question bearing HR – 55D 4236 as the case may be in terms of the Insurance Policy Cover Note.
b) direct the respondent no. 2 to recover the principal financed amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- along with due interest / remaining EMIs from the respondent no. 1
instead of complainant after deducting/ adjusting already paid amount of Rs. 2,42,500/- by the complainant in terms of insurance policy cover note bearing No. 53070631150100000200 for the period of 09.04.2015 to 08.04.2016.
c) direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental and physical pain and agony besides financial loss etc.
d) direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.’’
2. On receipt of notice of the instant complaint OP appeared and contested the claim vide their written statement. It is pleaded therein that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as Insurance Policy bearing no. 53070631150100000200 was issued from Beltola Branch (530706) Guwahati.
3. We have heard Shri Sushil Kumar learned counsel for complainant and Shri L.C. Sethi learned counsel for OP.
4. Learned Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on Judgement of Kerala State Commission titled as R. Krishna Kumar vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors. I (2007) CPJ 419 wherein Insurance Policy was issued by
Palakkad branch Complaint was filed in Thiruvananthapuram District Forum.
It was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. In appeal no. 355 of 2003 decided on 01.04.2006 Kerala State Commission held that Insurance Company having branch office in Thiruvananthapuram and Palakkd – Complaint was wrongly dismissed by the Forum and remanded back the matter.
5. Per contra Learned Counsel for OP has referred to first appeal no. 10/310 titled as Sh. Ghanshyam vs. Life Insurance Corporation filed before the Delhi State Commission wherein complainant had obtained Life Insurance Policy from Ghaziabad branch of LIC which was repudiated. Ultimately the complaint was filed to claim the amount of the policy with District Forum Delhi. District Forum vide its order dated 01/02/2010 dismissed the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Delhi State Commission vide its order dated 20.05.2013 observed:
‘’The counsel for the appellant submitted that the life insurance company is having the branch of Kamla Nagar, therefore the District Forum Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to try this case. We are not convinced with
the argument of the ld. Counsel of the appellant. If any public undertaking having branch office at different parts of the country, every branch will not have the territorial jurisdiction as per settled principle law and there are catena of Hon’ble Supreme Court in this respect. Admittedly, the insurance policy was taken at the Ghaziabad office of the LIC. The OP No. 2 has the branch office at Kamla Nagar. No cause of action or part of the action arose in Delhi and even the LIC, the OP No. 1 is not having the registered office. The District Forum has cited various law of Hon’ble Supreme Court propounding the same legal position. Simply because the OP No. 1 is having a branch office at Delhi, will not confer territorial jurisdiction to the District Forum at Delhi in as much as it has no concern with the complainant.’’
6. The question of territorial jurisdiction is settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40 Civil Appeal No. 1560/2004 order dated 20.10.2009. In the said judgment it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Act has to be interpreted in such a
way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting. It was observed that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Act would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.
7. Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint. In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of HUDA was in Panchkula , Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.
8. Hon’ble National Commission has shown concern that various District fora within the territory of NCT of Delhi exercise their jurisdiction strictly in accordance with the terms of Govt of Delhi Directorate of Consumer Affairs, Gazette Extraordinary (Part IV) Notification No. F. 50 (47) 96/F& S (CA) dated 20.04.1999 which is necessary to avoid forum shopping by the parties to consumer dispute.
9. Our State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr. First Appeal No. 488/2017 vide order dated 17.10.2017 held that:
‘’6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 in RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decions of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA 216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other and decision in Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.
7. The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area. Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.
8. Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos. If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.
10. The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit. It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order. On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to
strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.’’
10. Our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 date of decision : 09.02.2017 held that:
‘’We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission. The project is located at Gurgaon. The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI. The name of branch is conspicuously missing. Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch. He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account. So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark. Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction. He relied
upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office. Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India. There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act. Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.
3. Similar question reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, IV (2009) CPJ 40. In the said judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it could not agree with counsel of the appellant. It was held that interpretation has to
be given to amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence. If contention of counsel for appellant is accepted, it would mean that even if cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or any where in India where branch office of insurance company is situated. That would lead to absurd consequence and lead to bench hunting. The expression on branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. No doubt said interpretation would be departing from plain and literal word of section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
4. If branch office in clause 17 (2)(b) has to read alongwith cause of action, the same
interpretation should apply to section 17(1)(a) so as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." alongwith cause of action.
11. Commercial vehicle package policy in question was issued from Beltola Branch Guwahati. FIR qua theft of the vehicle was registered at Police Station Basistha Distt Kamrup, Assam on 26.04.2015. No part of cause of action is shown to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this forum. As such complaint be returned with liberty to file the same in the forum having jurisdiction. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 17th Day of August 2018.
