State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Nirmala Devi vs Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 October, 2008
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDARI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.360/07
Date of institution 18.07.07
Date of Order 24.10.08
1. Smt. Nirmala Devi,
W/o Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey,
2. Sanjay Kuar Dubey,
S/o Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey,
3. Aniket Kumar Dubey,
S/o Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey
All R/o. Ram Nagar, Colliery, Teh.: Kotma,
Dist. ANUP PUR(C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Though: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Behind High Court,
BILASPUR (C.G.)
2. Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L, Hasdeo Area,
South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Teh.: Manedragarh
Dist.KOREA (C.G.)
3. Chief Managing Director, S.E.C.L.,
Sipat Road, BILASPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES : -
Shri P.K. Shukla, for Appellants.
Shri Ghanshyam Patel, for respondent No.1.
Shri O.P. Agrawal, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
PRESENT : -
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
ORDER
PER: - HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER This appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 28.06.07 in complaint case No.22/07 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korea -
// 2 // Baikunthpur (hereinafter called the "District Forum" for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed with cost.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos. 2 & 3 Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey was working as watchman in Regional Workshop of SECL Hasdeo Area at Bijuri Colliery. Thereafter, he was transferred to Singhali Colliery at SECL Korba Area. While Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey was working at Bijuri Colliery he was insured under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy (hereinafter "Janta Policy" for short) and a sum of Rs.484/- was deducted from his salary and remitted to the insurer towards premium for the aforesaid policy. Subsequently, on 28.07.06 the insured Krishna Murari Dubey met with an accident at Urasia Chowk, Bango. As per averments of the complaint the widow gave intimation regarding incident to the insurer through employer of the deceased on 11.10.06 but the claim was not settled, hence, legal notice was served on 22.12.06. In reply to the legal notice the insurer had stated vide letter dated 27.12.06 that the policy had been cancelled. Thereafter the complaint was filed before the District Forum for seeking a direction to the OPs for payment of the claim amount together with interest and cost as detailed in the complaint.
// 3 //
3. OP - 1 had resisted the complaint on the ground that the policy was issued as per agreement between SECL, Bilaspur and OP - 1 under certain terms and conditions and certificate to the insured persons were issued. It was further averred that in case the husband of the complainant No.1 was insured, she should have filed the certificate. It was further averred in the written version filed by the OP - 1 that as per averments of the complaint, the complainants were residing at Ram Nagar Colliery, Teh.: Kotma, Anup Pur (M.P.). It was further averred that the deceased was earlier working at Bijuri Colliery and subsequently died at Korba, C.G., hence the District Forum at Korea - Baikunthpur did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further averred that the complainant No.1 has also not specified as from what place the premium was deducted from the salary of her deceased husband. It was further averred that the complainants did not give intimation of death to OP - 1 hence the complaint before the District Forum was pre-matured. OP - 1 had also alleged that when the complainants' counsel Shri P.K. Shukla served legal notice on 02.12.06 and subsequently on 22.12.06 also, the complainants had sent a letter but no documents were sent. It was further averred that the policy was cancelled w.e.f. 08.03.02 hence, the insurer was not liable to make any payment for death of Krishna // 4 // Murari Dubey who died on 28.07.06, subsequent to cancellation of the policy.
4. OP - 2 & 3 filed written version and admitted that Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey was working at Bijuri Colliery as watchman and subsequently he was transferred to Singhali Colliery of SECL Korba. They also admitted that the said Krishna Murari Dubey died on 28.07.06. It was further admitted that Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey was covered under the Janta Policy issued by OP - 1 and premium was deducted by OP - 2 & 3 and was remitted to the insurer / OP - 1.
5. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainants have failed to prove the averments made in the complaint. Aggrieved by the order the complainants have preferred the appeal under consideration.
6. Final arguments heard, record perused.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the material on record, as such has held that the complainants have failed to furnish any proof regarding payment of premium. He submitted that complainants had filed // 5 // certificate issued by the employer regarding deduction of premium. He further submitted that complainants had preferred claim before the insurer through employer but as no action was taken, subsequently legal notice to the parties was issued on 22.12.06. Details were mentioned in the said notice. In reply to the aforesaid notice insurer had demanded various documents from the complainants' counsel. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the District Forum at Korea Baikunthpur has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. He submitted that a sum of Rs.484/- was deducted towards premium from the salary of the deceased insured and was remitted by the employer to the insurer hence, the insurer was under obligation to pay the claim of complainants. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained, hence the same may be set aside and the appeal as well as the complaint may be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 / insurer submitted that the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and there is no need to interfere with the same. He further submitted that District Forum, Korea Baikunthpur had no jurisdiction to decide the matter as the insurer has neither any Branch situated at the aforesaid place nor // 6 // any cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid District Forum. Hence, the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the District Forum. In support of his averments learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied on Amarjeet Singh Parihar v. Sitaram Jangid II (2008) CPJ 7; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254; State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217; Union Bank of India v. Seppo Rally Oy (1999) 8 SCC 357; Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164; to show that the District Forum Korea - Baikunthpur had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 submitted that the amount towards premium was deducted by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from the salary of the deceased and the employer had issued a certificate on 16.09.06 in this regard which is a proof that the amount was deducted and the person was insured.
10. Admittedly, the insurer neither has branch office at Baikunthpur nor the insured died at the said place. Since the insurer has challenged territorial jurisdiction the only question to be considered in this regard is whether cause of action arose at the relevant place or not.
// 7 //
11. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that no part of cause of action has arisen within territorial limits of the District Forum, Korea - Baikunthpur because the Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey met with an accidental death at Bango, District Korba.
12. As per Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure - 'cause of action' means: -
"The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court."
In all the cases relied by respondent No.1 insurer, mentioned above, cause of action has been described in detail and it appears that once the cause of action arises wholly or in part within territorial limits of a Forum or a Court it will have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter. Hence it is only to be seen whether cause of action or any part thereof had arisen within territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum Korea - Baikunthpur or not.
13. We are not convinced by the plea taken by learned counsel for the insurer. On perusal of material on record it appears that the certificate dated 16.09.06 was issued by the Regional Workshop, Bijuri Colliery, SECL Hasdeo Area. It is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid certificate that an amount of Rs.484/- was deducted towards premium of Janta Policy of Oriental Insurance Company in the month of // 8 // September, 1999 from the salary of Shri K.M. Dubey S/o Shri Rajendra Dubey while he was posted at Regional Workshop, Bijuri Colliery, SECL, Hasdeo Area.
14. In view of the fact that premium was deducted and insurance was obtained while the insured was working at Bijuri Colliery Hasdeo Area, District Korea - Baikunthpur hence District Forum Korea - Baikunthpur had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As is known to all cause of action is not a single incident but a bundle of facts which gives rise to a claim. First and foremost thing required for laying claim before the insurer is issuance of policy and no policy is issued unless premium is paid, hence, we are of considered view that since the premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased insured while he was working with Regional Workshop, Bijuri Colliery, SECL Hasdeo Area, the District Forum at Korea - Baikunthpur has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Though as the insured died at Korba, complaint could have been filed at Korba but it could also be filed at Korea - Baikunthpur. In case two or more Forums have jurisdiction to entertain a matter it is for the complainant to choose convenient Forum.
// 9 //
15. The plea taken by the insurer that the complainants are not entitled since no intimation was given to the insurer regarding incident, cannot be believed. Though immediate intimation might not have given, yet on 06.12.06, the insurer had written a letter to Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate, Manendragarh, Korea (C.G.) in response to notice dated 02.12.06 issued by the said counsel. It was stated therein that though husband of the complainant No.1 had died on 28.07.06 no intimation was given to the insurer within a period of 15 days as is necessary. It is further stated that as counsel has issued notice he was directed to file certificate of insurance, salary slip showing deduction of premium. There upon the said counsel had sent the certificate regarding deduction of premium The plea taken by learned counsel for insurer is also that certificate of insurance has not been produced. It is true that no certificate of insurance has been filed by the complainants but even in absence of such certificate it is an admitted position that all permanent employees were covered under the Janta Policy. Hence, in the circumstances certificate from the employer to the effect that the deceased was under employment and premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased is sufficient to prove that deceased was covered under the policy.
// 10 //
16. Another plea taken by the insurer was that the policy was issued for permanent employees of SECL whereas there is nothing to show as to whether the deceased was a permanent employee or casual employee of SECL. The District Forum in the impugned order has also discussed the matter. We are of the opinion that the very fact that Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey was transferred from Bijuri Colliery SECL Hasdeo Area to Singhali Colliery, SECL goes to show that he was not a casual worker. Further, in the certificate issued by the employer it is stated that Lt. Krishna Murari Dubey was insured. We have no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid certificate. Hence the objection raised in this regard cannot be sustained.
17. Since there is sufficient material to prove that premium was paid towards insurance and the insured had died an accidental death, legal heirs are entitled to receive the amount of death claim. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum is set aside. It is directed that the insurer shall pay the insured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five // 11 // Lacs) to complainants / appellants with interest @ Rs.9% p.a. from the date of complaint within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. In case the amount is not paid within the said period interest @ Rs.12% p.a. shall be payable. The insurer shall also be liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards cost of proceedings to complainants / appellants.
(Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
Member Member