BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.1064/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.97/2006 DISTRICT FORUM, VIZIANAGARAM
Between:
Narayanam Appalaraju,
Husband of late N.Suvarnamala
Aged about 71 years, Occ:Advocate
R/o.H.No.4-2-70, Kothagraharam,
Vizianagaram. Appellant/
Complainant
A N D
1. The Peerless General Finance and Investment
Co. Ltd., Peerless Office, Srikakulam
Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Branch Manager.
2. Paramount Health Services Pvt. Ltd.,
AB-15, Ground floor, Sector-I
Salt late City, Kolkata. Respondents/
Complainants
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.V.Jagannath
Counsel for the Respondent:-Smt.P.Nivedita Reddy
QUORUM: SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order (Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***
This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant, the husband of the insured, who since died and his L.Rs. came to be brought on record, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint on two grounds to the effect that the complaint was barred by limitation as viewed in the light of the provisions contained in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also on the ground that the District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction in as much as both the opposite parties remained outside its territorial limits.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows:
The complainant was the husband of Suvarna Mala, who made fixed deposit of Rs.15,000/- with first opposite party for three years with free critical illness insurance cover. The insured suffered accidental injury leading to loss of four fingers of left leg. The insured underwent treatment in Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam from 12-1-2004 to 21-2-2004 and incurred an expenditure of Rs.61,882/- and claimed insurance of Rs.20,000/-. Her claim was rejected by 2nd opposite party on 5-6-2004. The insured later died on 16-7-2004 and the complainant, the husband of the insured addressed a letter dated 20-8-2004 to settle the claim. The matured amount under the fixed deposit was paid on 8-5-2005 but the opposite parties failed to pay the insurance amount. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards critical illness insurance cover together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
First opposite party filed counter and admitted that the wife of the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- for three years with free critical illness insurance cover. It contended that the complainant ought to have claimed the amount within thirty days from the date of diagnosis but he claimed the same on 13-5-2004 beyond one month from the date of illness i.e. 12-1-2004. It also contended that the complainant in his letter dated 17-8-2004 did not claim the alleged amount towards critical illness and he received the maturity amount of Rs.16,863/- on 16-10-2004 without any protest and hence submitted that there is no deficiency in service.
2nd opposite party remained exparte.
In support of their case, the complainants filed his affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A7. On the other hand, the opposite party relied upon the documents marked as Exs.B1 to B3.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the case of the complainant suffers from three infirmities, one fastening to the aspect of limitation, the other indicating one of territorial jurisdiction and yet another the failure on the part of the claimants to submit the claim within the stipulated period of 30 days as per the contract. On the basis of those grounds, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum erred in holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction although there was a specific pleading that remained unrebutted that major amount was paid to the complainant in Vizianagaram where the respondent No.1 had a branch office which circumstance satisfies the requirements of the principal being sued notwithstanding the fact that it is situated else where the moment one of the branches can be shown as situated within the territorial limits of District Forum. The other ground sought to be urged was that the District Forum equally erred in holding that the claim was barred by limitation although the order of repudiation was passed by a person who was not a privy to the contract atleast in so far as the complainant was concerned. The appellant further submitted that even the observation of the District Forum to the effect that the claim must be deemed to have failed on account of the infirmity that the claim was not put up within 30 days of the discharge of the insured at the end of illness in respect of which the claim came to be made.
Heard both sides.
The points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the complainant could establish that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
2) Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief in the complaint?
It is the case of the complainant that the conditions requisite for making a valid claim for the insurance amount of Rs.20,000/- by the insured were fully satisfied in terms of the contract and the repudiation pleaded by the opposite party was not at all valid for various reasons. The first and foremost reason assigned was that the repudiation cannot stand in the eye of law for the simple reason that it was made by opposite party No.2 with whom the complainant never had any contractual relationship. Therefore the very repudiation set out in Ex.A4 that was sought to be relied upon by the insurance company, opposite party No.1 turned out to be totally untenable and therefore it must be held that there was no repudiation at all in the eye of law. It is therefore in these circumstances that the inordinate delay in actually adjudicating the claim by the competent authority namely opposite party no.1 would itself signify the deficiency in service and in such scheme of things, the point that the claim was not made within 30 days by an authorized agent cannot be held as inuring for the benefit of the case of opposite party No.1. The next ground which weighed with the District Forum was equally under attack by the appellant who urged that the want of territorial jurisdiction is itself on an erroneous premise that the complainants should necessarily stay within the territorial limits overlooking the provisions that even the situs of the branch of the principal where the principal itself is sued would in itself satisfy the conditions of jurisdiction. This is a valid argument, if one goes by the provisions contained in Section 11(2))(b). However, there is yet another glitch in Section 11(2)(b) which the counsel for the appellant has to get over. It pertains to the requirements of leave been taken when the defendant or one of the defendants being stationed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum in question. In such a case the law contemplates permission being taken from the District Forum. But in the instant case, the District Forum did not raise an objection while checking the complaint. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that the District Forum by implication permitted the complainant to lay the complaint in terms of Section 11(2)(b). Thus the three grounds upon which the District Forum harped to dismiss the complaint turned out to be untenable and in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. Consequently the appeal has to be allowed reversing the order of the District Forum and as a further sequence the complaint has to be allowed.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and as a further sequence the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed directing opposite party No.1 only to pay the insurance amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and opposite party No.1 shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.29-12-2009
