State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager, Oriental ... vs Sonia Rani Wife Of Shri Rajesh Kumar on 2 April, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1528 of 2011
Date of institution : 18.10.2011
Date of decision : 02.04.2013
1. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company,
Divisional Office-14, G-80, Gupta Market, Main Bazar, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., A-25/27, Asif Ali Road,
New Delhi-110 002.
3. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Dhuri
Road, near Indane Gas Agency, Sangrur.
Appellant No.1 to 3 through Shri Ram Avtar, Deputy Manager-
cum-Authorized Signatory, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17A, Chandigarh.
.......Appellants- OPs No.1 to 3
Versus
1. Sonia Rani wife of Shri Rajesh Kumar, resident of VPO Andana,
Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.
......Respondent/Complainant
2. M/s Dauphin Touch Network Private Limited, A-212-C/301,
Tripupati Plaza, St. No.1, Shakarpur, Delhi-92.
......Respondent- OP No.4
First Appeal against the order dated
9.9.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Veena A. Talwar, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Shri Raj Kapur Malik, Advocate. For respondent No.2 : Ex parte.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/OPs No.1 to 3 against the order dated 9.9.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes First Appeal No.1528 of 2011. 2 Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Sonia Rani, was allowed and the OPs No.1 to 3 were directed to pay her a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of death of Rajesh Kumar till the realization of that amount and Rs.11,000/- as compensation.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), Rajesh Kumar Nain, husband of the complainant, became member of Dauphin Touch Network Pvt. Ltd., OP No.4, on 4.6.2008 after making payment of Rs.4500/- as product package. That company obtained one GPA policy for all its members from OPs No.1 to 3 and the amount insured was Rs.3,00,000/- per member, which was to be paid in the event of accidental death. He, while travelling on tractor trolley on 17.10.2008, met with an accident near the school at village Nawangaon. He fell down and received severe injuries on his head and died at the spot. The post mortem on the dead body was conducted in Civil Hospital, Sunam on the same day and the report about this accident was lodged by way of DDR No.8 dated 17.10.2008 in PS-Khanauri. She, being the beneficiary/nominee of the deceased, sent all the documents along with the claim form to OP No.1. She was entitled to receive the insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the accidental death of her husband but OPs No.1 to 3 First Appeal No.1528 of 2011. 3 failed to pay that amount. Nothing came out in spite of the service of the legal notice on those OPs.
3. OPs No.1 to 3 failed to file any written reply in spite of the fact that a number of opportunities were granted to them by the District Forum and ultimately, their defence was struck off, vide order dated 11.8.2011. Written reply was filed by OP No.4. In that reply it denied that the package purchased by Rajesh Kumar deceased from it also included the insurance policy. However, it bought the accidental insurance policy from the office of OP No.1 and gifted the same to the deceased for which no amount was ever charged. The premium cost was borne by it. The deceased never became its consumer. The other OPs are to settle the claim of the complainant regarding the death of the deceased. It never indulged in any unfair trade practice. The present complaint is not maintainable against it. It also averred that the District Forum at Sangrur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as its registered office is situated at Delhi and only a branch office is at Sangrur. The insurance policy was issued from Delhi by OPs No.1 to 3. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties in support of their respective averments produced evidence before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
First Appeal No.1528 of 2011. 4
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the OPs that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The insurance policy was issued by the office situated at Delhi and, as such, only the District Forum, Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction. The complaint could not have been entertained as it was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation of two years. According to the complainant herself, the death of her husband had taken place on 17.10.2008 whereas the complaint was filed on 9.3.2011. On these two grounds the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., OP, has a Branch Office at Sangrur. The deceased died in the district of Sangrur and, as such, a part of the cause of action has arisen within that district. Therefore, the District Forum at Sangrur had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose to the complainant not only on the death of the insured but also on the date when the claim submitted by her was ordered to be filed as "no claim". The same was done on 18.12.2010 and, as such, the complaint was within limitation. He has tried to support his submissions by 2010(1) PLR 396 (Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Ltd.).
8. It was not disputed, at the time of arguments, that Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., OP, has a Branch Office at Sangrur. As already said above, no written reply was filed by OPs No.1 to 3. First Appeal No.1528 of 2011. 5 However, the submissions raised by their counsel, being legal, can be looked into even in the absence of any defence. It is the admitted case of the parties that the insurance policy for the deceased was obtained by OP No.4. The letter received from OP No.1 and which was addressed to OP No.4 was proved on record as Ex.C-6. Vide this letter dated 22.12.2006, OP No.1 informed OP No.4 that it has agreed to issue Group Nagrik Suraksha Policy in its name for a sum insured of Rs.5,00,000/- per person for a policy period of one year. Thus, the insurance cover was provided by OP No.1. The certificate of insurance is proved on the record as Ex.C-7. It was issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi. Admittedly, the deceased died in the limits of district Sangrur and the Branch Office of the said Insurance Company is located at Sangrur and the Branch Manager thereof was impleaded as OP No.2. A part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of district Sangrur. While dealing with the expression "Branch Office" in Sonic Surgical's case (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Branch Office" means the Branch Office where cause of action has arisen. Therefore, the complainant was competent to file the complaint in the District Forum at Sangrur. There is no weight in the submission made by learned counsel for the OPs that the said District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. Period of limitation for filing the complaint has been prescribed by Section 24-A of the Act and that period is two years from the date First Appeal No.1528 of 2011. 6 of accrual of the cause of action. Cause of action means bundle of facts, which gives rise to a right or liability. It was so held in Sonic Surgical's case (supra). No doubt, the cause of action in the present case first arose on the date of the death of the deceased but again a fresh cause of action had arisen to the complainant when her claim was ordered to be filed as "no claim". She proved on record letter dated 18.11.2008, Ex.C-3, vide which OP No.1 had asked for the documents mentioned therein for deciding the claim so submitted by the complainant. It was mentioned at the end of this letter that the same be treated as urgent and the documents must be sent within 15 days and otherwise the case shall be closed as "no claim". Thus, a fresh cause of action arose to the complainant from the date of that letter. The complaint was filed by her on 9.3.2011 i.e. within the statutory period of two years. Therefore, the same could not have been dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by time. As such, the second submission raised by counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 is also to be rejected.
10. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
11. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellants. First Appeal No.1528 of 2011. 7
12. The arguments in this case were heard on 19.3.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
April 02, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER