National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Gopal Gupta & Anr. on 3 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2008 (Against the order dated 11.09.2008 in Complaint No. 11 of 2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh) New India Assurance Company Ltd. SCO No. 510/14 Pehowa Road, Govind Nagar Ambala Road, Kaithal (Punjab) Through Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. Regional Office-I Jeevan Bharti Building 124, Connaught Circus New Delhi-110001 Appellant Versus 1. Gopal Gupta S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass Proprietor M/s Varun Jute Industries Peoda Road Kaithal (Punjab) 2. M/s Varun Jute Industries Through its Proprietor Gopal Gupta Peoda Road Kaithal (Punjab) Respondent FIRST APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2008 (Against the order dated 11.09.2008 in Complaint No. 11 of 2008 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh) Gopal Gupta S/o Shri Banarsi Dass Sole Proprietor, M/s Varun Jute Industries Peoda Road, Kaithal, Haryana Appellant Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. Regional Office at SCO No.36, Sector 17-A Near Jagat Theatre, Chandigarh And Branch Office at SCO No. 510/14 Pehowa Road, Govind Nagar Ambala Road, Kaithal Haryana Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER Appearance in both matters For Insurance Company : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate For Gopal Gupta, Proprietor : Mr. Jos Chiramel, Advocate M/s Varun Jute Industries Pronounced on : 3rd September, 2013 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI
1. First Appeal No.428 of 2008 has been filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd., Respondent before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had partly allowed the complaint filed by Gopal Gupta (Proprietor of M/s Varun Jute Industries), Original Complainant before the State Commission, and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.15,15,072/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as costs to the Complainant. Being aggrieved by the award of lesser amount towards insurance claim, Complainant has also filed First Appeal No. 431 of 2008 seeking enhancement of the insurance claim to Rs.50,53,475/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of survey report i.e. 28.03.2007.
Since the parties as also cause of action is common in both First Appeals, it is proposed to dispose of these appeals by one common order. The parties will be referred to in the manner in which they were referred to in the complaint i.e. Gopal Gupta as Complainant and New India Assurance Company Ltd. as Respondent.
2. Learned Counsels for both parties made oral submissions.
3. Counsel for Respondent/Insurance Company stated that the State Commission UT Chandigarh erred in not taking cognizance of their preliminary objection that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of that Commission.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had his business at Kaithal (Haryana), the insurance policies were also taken at Kaithal and the claim was lodged and repudiated at Kaithal. Respondent No.1, which is a Branch of Respondent/Insurance Company, has nothing to do with the issuance of insurance policy or repudiation of the claim and had only been impleaded as a party by the Complainant to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission UT Chandigarh.
4. Counsel for the Complainant had taken a contrary plea stating that since the Respondent/Insurance Company had a Branch in UT Chandigarh, the State Commission UT Chandigarh was fully justified in entertaining the complaint and disposing of the same. However, the Complainant has filed the appeal only for enhancement of the awarded amount.
5. We have carefully considered the preliminary submissions of Respondent/Insurance Company challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission UT Chandigarh to try this case since admittedly this objection was not discussed or decided by the State Commission in its order. From a perusal of the records filed by both parties, it is not in dispute that the premises which were insured by Complainant were in Kaithal, the insurance policy was issued in Kaithal and the claim was filed and repudiated therein. While it may be a fact that the Respondent/Insurance Company has a Branch office in Chandigarh, this by itself does not give the State Commission UT Chandigarh the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2010) 1 SCC 135], wherein it has been held as under:
Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
(Emphasis supplied) Respectfully following this judgment, we had also ruled accordingly in P.D. Memorial Religious & Educational Association Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (First Appeal No. 448 of 2008 decided on 18.04.2013.
6. Learned Counsel for the Complainant fairly concedes that under these circumstances he would have no objection if this case is heard de-novo by the Court having the territorial jurisdiction to decide the same.
7. In view of the above facts, the order of the State Commission UT Chandigarh is set aside on ground of territorial jurisdiction. The case is remitted back to the State Commission UT Chandigarh to transfer the complaint alongwith the evidence recorded by it to the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order for disposal as per procedure laid down in law. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 09.12.2013. Since it is an old case pertaining to the year 2008, Haryana State Commission is requested to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of first appearance.
Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company states that in compliance with the order dated 28.01.2009 of this Commission the Insurance Company had deposited a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs with the State Commission, which Complainant was at liberty to withdraw. Counsel for the Complainant states that Complainant has not withdrawn that amount.
In view of this, Counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company states that the said amount be refunded to it.
If that be so, the State Commission UT Chandigarh is directed to refund the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs deposited by the Respondent/Insurance Company to the Respondent/Insurance Company with accrued interest.
Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Mukesh