State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Zonal Manager, Life Insurance ... vs Sh. Harish Chandra Joshi on 4 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 88 / 2009
1. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Mall Road, Kanpur
2. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Hazratganj, Lucknow
3. Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Indira Nagar, Lucknow
4. Sh. R.K. Srivastava, Administrative Officer
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Indira Nagar, Lucknow
5. Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
New Connaught Place, Branch-I, Dehradun
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Harish Chandra Joshi
Additional Secretary, Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha
Dehradun, R/o IV/8, Officers Colony
Near M.L.A. Transit House, Race Course
Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. M.N. Mishra, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 04/08/2010
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consumer complaint No. 173 of 2007 and directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.2
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Sh. Harish Chandra Joshi had taken a 15 years' Jeevan Surbhi Policy on 14.04.1992 on his own life for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short "LIC"). The policy was a Money Back Policy and, as such, 30%, 30% and 40% of the sum insured was payable at an interval of 4 years from the date of commencement of the policy. The bonus, dividend etc. was payable at the time of maturity of the policy on 14.04.2007. The policy was issued by LIC's Indira Nagar Branch, Lucknow. The complainant has alleged that the Senior Branch Manager of the said branch of LIC - opposite party No. 3 did not pay the amounts of money back instalments in time and, thus, made deficiency in service. The LIC paid the instalments on the following dates:
Sl. No. Money Back Due Date Date of Delay
Instalment Payment
st
1. 1 (30%) 14.04.1996 08.05.1996 24 days
2. 2nd (30%) 14.04.2000 14.04.2000 No delay
3. 3rd (40%) 14.04.2004 08.07.2000 86 days
4. Balance 14.04.2007 21.04.2007 7 days
amount on
maturity
3. The complainant has also alleged that no intimation was sent by the LIC regarding the payment of the balance amount on the date of maturity of the policy. For this, he travelled all the way from Dehradun to Lucknow and visited the office of the opposite party No. 3 on 05.04.2007 and submitted duly filled in discharge form and policy bond.
4. The complainant regularly contacted the opposite party No. 3 on telephone, but he never received any response. Ultimately, he was informed that the opposite party No. 3 was on leave. Then the 3 complainant again travelled to Lucknow on 21.04.2007 and met Sh. R.K. Srivastava, Administrative Officer - opposite party No. 4, but Sh. R.K. Srivastava refused to issue the cheque to the complainant and misbehaved with him.
5. The complainant has also alleged that the LIC realised from him a sum of Rs. 5,717/- against the last instalment of the policy, which he had already deposited in March, 2003. However, this amount was refunded by the LIC after a lot of persuasion. Thus, the complainant suffered a lot of harassment and inconvenience, causing mental and physical agony due to the negligence and callous attitude of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. He sent a notice dated 06.09.2007 to the opposite party through his counsel asking them to tender an unconditional apology to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite parties did not pay any heed to the notice. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, narrating therein his grievances and his woes against the opposite parties, as stated above and requested the District Forum to award sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony; Rs. 2,200/- as cost of legal notice; interest @18% p.a. on belated payment; D.A. and T.A. incurred by the complainant twice from Dehradun to Lucknow and cost of the consumer complaint. The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 16.04.2009 and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case.
47. The main objection of the learned counsel for the appellants is on the point of the territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel submitted that the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint had arisen in Lucknow because it was the Lucknow Branch of the LIC, which had issued the policy bond and had paid the money back instalments to the complainant. The allegations made by the complainant are also against the appellant Nos. 3 and 4. Thus, the consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be filed either at Mumbai where the Central Office of the LIC is situated or at Lucknow.
8. Before considering the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, we would like to decide the dispute in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the case. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the complainant - respondent is that the complainant resides in Dehradun and he has paid the premium at Dehradun. This plea is not sustainable because it is not the deciding factor for the territorial jurisdiction of the case as to where the complainant resides normally. There is no such provision under Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The deciding factor is as to where the opposite party, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Here, the branch office should be interpreted with respect to the place of business of the opposite party. Thus, the Dehradun branch of LIC is not a branch of the Indira Nagar, Lucknow branch of LIC.
9. If the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are interpreted the way the learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded, a chaotic state would arise. The complainant would be free to file his complaint anywhere in India 5 depending upon his convenience. Administratively also, it would not be feasible because during the proceedings, the District Forum may summon the original record of the opposite party and may also summon a person / opposite party for cross-examination. For these reasons, the provision of Section 11(2) of the Act provides that a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or has a branch office.
10. Even if we look into the matter on the basis of cause of action, we find that it was the Lucknow branch of the LIC, which had issued the policy bond, had paid the money back instalments and had delayed the payment. The persons, appellant Nos. 3 and 4, also work in Lucknow branch and complainant's grievances are against these officials of the insurance company. So, if a deficiency in service was made, it was made by the Lucknow branch of the LIC and its officials. In our opinion, the District Forum has erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the case. We have also expressed such a view in our earlier order dated 19.04.2006 in First Appeal No. 489 of 2004; Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another. We have no new reason to deviate from this view while considering the case on its territorial jurisdiction.
11. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 16.04.2009 of the District Forum is set aside. However, the complainant - respondent would be at liberty to file the consumer complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)
6
K