State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Sarabjit Singh Kochhar & Anr. vs M/S Unitech India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 25 July, 2019
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision:25.07.2019
First Appeal No.379/2019
(Arising out of the order dated 02.05.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.
97/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas
Bhawan, New Delhi)
1. Mr. Sarabjit Singh Kochhar,
S/o Mr. Satwant Singh Kochhar,
2. Mrs. Ramanjit Kochhar,
W/o Mr. Sarabjit Singh Kochhar,
BOTH RESIDENTS OF:
124, Sunder Nagar,
New Delhi -110003.
.....Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
H-61, Floor No.1, Govind Mansion
Behind Indira Palace, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi -110001.
....Respondent
CORAM
Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member
1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act") against order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI) New Delhi (in short, the "District Page 1 of 9 Forum") in Complaint Case No.97/2019 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been returned to the complainant for want of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the appellants herein i.e. the complainants before the District Forum stating therein that appellants/complainants had entered into the agreement the respondent/OP for purchase of an overseas travel insurance policy providing travel and medical insurance assistance. The policy was purchased for the period from 30.07.2017 to 19.08.2017. It is stated that appellants/complainants were travelling as a part of group from Delhi to Nairobi and their flight scheduled for 30.07.2017 from Mumbai to Nairobi was cancelled by Kenya Airways without providing any explanation, which resulted in delay of journey causing inconvenience to the appellants/complainants. It is stated that due to cancellation of flight they lost personal accommodation for the night of 30.07.2017. In addition to it appellants/complainant also lost sightseeing scheduled for 31.07.2017 i.e. the Safari. It is stated that the appellants/complainants are entitled to reasonable compensation as per terms and conditions of the policy for loss of personal accommodation, loss of sightseeing, trip delay. It is stated that appellants/complainants approached the respondent/OP for addressing their grievance. However, the respondent/OP rejected their claim simply mentioning that the incident does not fall within the purview of Travel Inconvenience. Finding deficiency in service on the part of respondent /OP, Page 2 of 9 appellants/complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking various directions against the respondent/OP including litigation costs.
3. Ld. District Forum after hearing arguments on the admissibility of the complaint returned the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The observation of the Ld. District Forum reads as under:
"In the present case, the complainants booked the ticket online. The policy in question was issued from the Chennai office of the OP. The claim of the complainant was also rejected from the Chennai office of the OP. Hence, neither the policy issuing office of the OP nor the cause of action or even part of the same arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction
4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.
5. There is no need to issue notice to the respondent/OP as the question for deciding the present appeal is that in a case where a consumer has purchased a product online i.e. through internet, in case of deficiency in providing service, at which place, he/she could file a consumer complaint for redressal of his/her grievance.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Trimex International FZE Limited Dubai v. Vedanta Aluminum Limited 2 010 (1) SCALE 574 has recognized the validity of online transactions and held that emails exchanged between the parties regarding mutual obligations constitute a contract.
Page 3 of 9
7. Qua territorial jurisdiction of a District Forum, Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) reads as under:-
"A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) 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
(b) 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 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
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises".
8. It is clearly provided that a complaint can be filed before the District Forum, within whose jurisdiction the opposite party(s) resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. It is further provided that the complaint can be filed in a place, before a Forum, where any of the opposite parties actually and voluntarily resides etc. and personally works for gain. Above filing will be subject to permission granted by the District Forum or consent of the opposite parties, not residing within the jurisdiction of a District Forum, where complaint was filed. Provision also stipulates that the complaint can be filed before a District Forum where cause of action wholly or in part, arises. Similar provision exists qua Page 4 of 9 territorial jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as per Section 17 (2) of the Act.
9. The question which has been set down for consideration, at the beginning of this order, was raised by Counsel for the appellant, to say that the complaint could not have been returned by the Ld. District Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for appellants/complainants that respondent/OP has its branch office at Connaught Place, New Delhi and respondent/OP work for gain within the limits of jurisdiction of the District Forum, where the complaint was instituted, as such the appellants/complainants cannot be precluded from instituting the complaint at District Forum -VI under Clause (a) of Section 11(2), C.P. Act, 1986.
10. In the present case, the policy was purchase online and for that amount was paid through Debit/ATM Card at their residence in Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. Money was transferred from a bank account of the appellants/complainants situated in Delhi, to the bank account of the respondent/OP at Chennai, where headquarter of the respondent/OP is situated. The said policy which was purchased through internet was delivered to the appellants/complainants.
11. It is well neigh settled that contracts can be concluded through telephone, where the parties are placed at distance, without having direct access to each other. In such a situation, contract would be completed at a place, where its acceptance is communicated. Because of advancement & technology and rapid growth of new models of conducting business over the Page 5 of 9 internet, it is possible for an entity to have a virtual presence at a place, which is located at a distance from the place, where it has a physical presence. In the present times, the availability of goods and services, through the website at a particular place, has virtually become the same thing, as a seller having shops, in that place, in the physical sense. Besides as above, ordinarily existence of offer and its intimation, results in a contract and a suit can be filed at a place, where acceptance was communicated. Furthermore, performance of a contract forms a part of cause of action and grievance can be redressed by filing a suit, qua its breach at a place, where contract should have been performed. It was so said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v A.P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR 1239=1989 SCR (2) 1, while interpreting the provisions of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
12. The provisions of Section 11 (2) of the CPA 1986 are akin to the provisions of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The pronouncement of law, as made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.'s case (supra) would apply in full force to the Consumer Forums, when trying complaints under the CPA 1986. Not only this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Marine Container Services South vs Go Go Garments (AIR 1999 SC 80) (Para
4), also held that the Contract Act applies to all litigants, including the litigants under the CPA 1986. In view of above, it can safely be said that for the purpose of consumer complaints, relating to normal contracts for services and/or goods, cause of action arises inter-alia at any of the places, Page 6 of 9 where; (a) the contract is made; and/or (b) where acceptance of the contract is communicated and/or (c) where the contract is performed or is to be performed and/or (d) where money under the contract is either payable or paid and/or (e) where repudiation of the contract is received, if any.
Consequently, territorial jurisdiction over a consumer complaint also lies with the Consumer Fora situated at any place, where any of the aforementioned cause of action arises.
13. In the present case, the policy was purchased through internet. It was accepted and policy was sent on payment of money, to the appellants/complainants, at Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. The rejection of the claim of appellants/complainants was received at their residence at New Delhi. In terms of above provisions, it can safely be said that the policy would be taken to have been sent at appellants'/complainants' place of business/residence. The acceptance of contract would also be deemed to have been communicated at the above place. By reading the provisions of CPA 1986 and with the help of ratio of the judgment in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.'s case (supra), it can safely be hold that, where contracts for services and/or goods are entered into over the internet (or online as such transactions are commonly referred to), then, for the purposes of consumer complaints, part of the cause of action arises inter-alia, at the complainant's place of business, if acceptance of the contract is communicated to through the internet, including the medium of email. Further, irrespective of the fact, whether or not the contract is one made over the internet, cause of action would also continue to arise at any of the Page 7 of 9 places (a) where the contract is performed or is to be performed or (b) where money under the contract is either payable or paid or (c) where repudiation of the contract is received, if any. As such, it cannot be disputed that a Consumer Fora is competent to entertain a consumer complaint, even if only an infinitesimal part of cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction. As a result, territorial jurisdiction over a consumer complaint would lie with the Consumer Fora situated at any place, where any of the aforementioned causes of action arises. This, of course, is in addition to the other places, where a consumer may choose to file a complaint in accordance with the other provisions of Section 11 (2) of the CPA, 1986.
14. As stated above, in the present case the policy was purchased online through internet from the website of the respondent/OP and the respondent/OP has its branch office within the limits of jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, the District Forum-VI shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants. Accordingly, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the complaint to its original number.
15. Appellants/complainants are directed to appear before the District Forum-VI on 19.08.2019 and submits the original complaint alongwith its annexure if not collected from the District Forum. Thereafter, the Ld. District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
Page 8 of 9
16. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information.
Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.
(Salma Noor) Presiding Member Tri Page 9 of 9