State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Mandeep Kaur vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 19 April, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL - 8 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL DEHRA DUN APPEAL NO. 489 / 2004 Smt. Mandeep Kaur ......Appellant Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another .....O. P. / Respondents Sh. M.M. Lamba, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 Miss Anupama Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 19.04.2006 ORDER
(Per:
Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act) against the order dated 16.10.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Complainant is the mother of late Sh. Preetpal Singh who had taken accident insurance certificate organized by M/s Life Care, O.P. No. 2. The said company was under the terms of the contract is the insured and the liability under the contract was agreed to be indemnified by insurer, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Rattan Jyoti Building, 4th Floor, 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, the O.P. No. 1. The accident insurance certificate was for the period 14.08.2001 to 13.08.2002. Late Sh. Preetpal Singh met with an accident on 20.03.2002 within the circle of P.S. Tanda, District Rampur (U.P.) and breathed his last in a hospital in New Delhi. The claim preferred was not settled and on account of deficiency in service, the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
3. O.P.'s contested the complaint and raised the legal plea that the District Forum at Udham Singh Nagar has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The District Forum by the impugned order accepted the plea as regards the territorial jurisdiction by observing that neither the opposite parties reside or do business or run its branch offices, nor the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Udham Singh Nagar. The complaint, was, accordingly dismissed.
4. The question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether the District Forum at Udham Singh Nagar has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the matter in dispute.
5. Section 11 of the Act defines the jurisdiction of the District Forum and sub-section (2) relate to the territorial jurisdiction and the provision reads as below:
"Section 11 (2) - A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-
the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
6. Both the opposite parties as arrayed in the complaint do not belong to District Udham Singh Nagar and as per their address, the opposite party No. 1 has its office in New Delhi, whereas the opposite party No. 2 has its office in Delhi. In paragraph No. 8 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the opposite party No. 1 has Branch Office in Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. However, the opposite party No. 1 does not admit it. It is to be noted that the alleged branch of opposite party No. 1 was not impleaded as one of the opposite party in the complaint. To support the allegation, the complainant brought on record two quotations (Paper Nos. 68 & 69) of the Kashipur Branch of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the contention raised by the opposite party No. 1 stand belied and since opposite party No. 1 has a Branch Office at Kashipur, the view taken by the District Forum cannot legally be sustained. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 drew attention to the definition of "Branch Office" as is given under Section 2(1)(aa) of the Act to bring home his point of view that the opposite party No. 1 cannot be held to have a Branch Office at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Learned Counsel also drew attention to the annexures of the written submissions to show that the opposite party No. 1, which is a Divisional Office does not have any Branch Office in entire Uttaranchal, what to say of District Udham Singh Nagar and that opposite party No. 1 has only one Branch Office situate at 10, Qutab Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi - 55.
7. Before taking up the merit of the above submissions, it is appropriate to reproduce the definition of "Branch Office" as is given under Section 2(1)(aa) of the Act and which reads as under:
"Section 2(1)(aa) - "Branch Office" means-
any establishment described as a branch by the opposite party; or any establishment carrying on either the same or substantially the same activity as that carried on by the head office of the establishment.
It need to be stressed that the above definition of the "Branch Office" make it obvious that the opposite party to a case may have a countrywide or global operation of business, but the Branch Office would be one as described as such by the opposite party itself or which is performing functions similar to that of the opposite party. The annexures 1 and 2 of the written submissions on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 reveal that various Divisional Offices of the opposite party No. 1 have separate Branch Offices at different places and that opposite party No. 1 has only one branch at 10, Qutab Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi - 55 and whereas the Divisional Office of Haldwani, District Nainital (U.A.) has three branch offices at Kashipur, also referred to by the Learned Counsel for the complainant - appellant and other two at Almora and Rudrapur. These annexures contain complete list of the Divisional Office of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and various Branch Offices falling under different Divisional Offices of the company and the descriptions clearly indicate that the opposite party No. 1 has no Branch Office at Kashipur and therefore the two quotations obtained from the Branch office of the company at Kashipur cannot be taken to support the argument of the Learned Counsel that the opposite party No. 1 has Branch Office at Kashipur within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. In other words, these quotations are of no avail to the cause of the complainant - appellant. Moreover there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate or suggest that the branch office at Kashipur is performing functions similar to that of the opposite party No. 1, the Divisional Office of the insurance company and the things thus, make it clear that neither the branch at Kashipur has been described as the Branch Office of the opposite party No. 1, nor the said branch is alleged or shown to carry on similar activity as that carried by the Divisional Office, opposite party No. 1. In other words, the Kashipur branch (not a party to the case) is not under the supervision and control of the Divisional Office, the opposite party No. 1 which is the insurer in the present case.
8. As is evident from the provision of Section 11 of the Act, the complaint can also be filed at the place where the cause of action has, wholly or in part, arisen. The written complaint is completely silent as to how the cause of action, wholly or in part arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. In the written submission on behalf of the complainant - appellant, it has been urged that after Late Sh. Preetpal Singh met with an accident on 20.03.2002, he was taken to the hospital at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and since he was first of all treated in the District of Udham Singh Nagar, the District Forum Udham Singh Nagar has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. It is not in dispute that the deceased met with an accident in the territory of District Rampur (U.P.) and succumbed to his injuries in a hospital at Delhi. Even if it is accepted that the deceased received some treatment in District Udham Singh Nagar, it would not mean that cause of action has, in part, arisen in this District and the complaint could have been filed in District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. It was also urged in the written argument that the insurance certificate from the opposite party No. 2, the insured was taken by the deceased at Udham Singh Nagar but there is absolutely nothing on record by way of any document to support this submission and therefore, it can also safely be said that no part of the insurance transaction took place or executed in District Udham Singh Nagar. Insurance certificate (Paper No. 39) organized by opposite party No. 2 clearly indicate that the opposite party No. 2 carry on its business at its office in Delhi and the certificate also does not indicate that the deceased entered into the transaction with opposite party No. 2 to have Group Personal Accident Insurance Certificate in his favour at a place other than Delhi. Therefore, the above submission advanced on behalf of the complainant - appellant does not stand substantiated and on this account also, it cannot be said that the cause of action has, wholly or in part, arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
9. It shall be advantageous to refer to a reported decision of the National Commission in the matter of Patel Roadways Limited Vs. Tokusun Menon Paper Manufacturing Company Limited; 1997 (I) CPC 97 = 1997 (I) CPR 144 (NC). In the case before the National Commission, the question of territorial jurisdiction came to be considered. In that case, the consignment was entrusted at the Madhavaram branch of the transport company which was within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Chengalpattu and not the District Forum, Madras North. Fact that the transport company had a branch office in North Madras did not give the Consumer Forum at Madras North the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the National Commission set aside the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum and directed the complaint to be returned to file it before proper District Forum. In the face of the facts of the instant case, the ratio of the reported decision squarely apply here and in our view, the District Forum rightly held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the matter in dispute. On behalf of the opposite parties, the decision of National Commission in the matter of Indian Airlines Corporation & Ors. Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and another; 1992 (1) CPR 4 was pressed into service. In that case, there was also a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad. One of the aggrieved person, a resident of Goa taking flight in Indian Airlines to Lucknow via Bombay, alleged deficiency in service on account of the flight cancelled at Bombay. Claim was filed in Ahmedabad where Indian Airlines had an office. Similarly another person, a resident of Calcutta got injured in flight from Bombay to Calcutta and claim was filed in Gujarat. The State Commission entertained the complaints. National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission and held that since no part of cause of action arise in Ahmedabad, the complaint petitions could not have been filed at Ahmedabad. The ratio of this decision also support the stand of the opposite parties.
10. Two decisions of this Commission (Revision No. 04 of 2002, Durga Traders Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision No. 06 of 2002, Sh. Shambhu Prasad Bhardwaj Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 11.11.2002 and Revision No. 05 of 2002, Sh. Surendra Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Revision No. 07 of 2002, Sh. Tara Chand Jagdish Lal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 61 of 2002, Sh. Adarsh Kumar Sharma Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another, decided on 11.11.2002) were also relied upon on behalf of the opposite parties. Similar views were taken by this Commission and complaints were directed to be filed before the proper District Forum.
11. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we are of the firm view that the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide the matter in dispute and the view taken by the District Forum by its impugned order dated 16.10.2004 is correct. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
12. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The complaint shall be returned by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar to the complainant - appellant to file it before the District Forum having jurisdiction in the matter.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)