State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Seema @ Seema Saini vs National Insurance Company Limited on 10 February, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.378 of 2014
Date of institution : 03.04.2014
Date of decision : 11.02.2015
Seema @ Seema Saini widow of late Ravinder Pal son of Gurdas
Mal, resident of Village Sherpur Gidderpur, PO Rattangarh, Tehsil
and District Pathankot.
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited having Divisional Office
at No.141/142, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad-201 001 (UP)
through its Divisional Manager.
2. Dauphin Touch Network Private Ltd., having its Branch at
Ludhiana through its authorized person.
........Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
16.1.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Munish Puri, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For respondent No.2 : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant, Seema @ Seema Saini, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 16.1.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by her against the First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 2 respondents/opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate Court/Forum.
2. The complainant alleged, in her complaint, that opposite party No.2 had been acting as duly authorized agent/franchisee of opposite party No.1 for procuring insurance business. Her husband, Ravinder Pal, was approached at his residence situated in Village Sherpur Gidderpur, Tehsil Pathankot by an official of opposite party No.2 for the purpose of insuring him and received Rs.4,500/- on 9.8.2011, vide Receipt No.2308058. He was issued ID No.2308058 by opposite party No.2 for the facilitation of insurance purposes. Opposite party No.2 got insured him through opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-; Rs.3,20,000/- for personal accident benefits and Rs.80,000/- for hospitalization charges, if any. He was issued the Policy for the period 15.9.2011 to 14.9.2012 after the acceptance of the premium and in that Policy he appointed her, as his nominee/assignee. He was privately employed with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Pathankot. On 15.10.2011 he was on duty when suddenly electric pole fell on him and he was severely hit in the head. He was immediately removed to Civil Hospital, Gharota, Pathankot, where he died on the same day at 1.30 P.M. due to that head injury. The accident was reported to Police Station-Kanwan and the police took the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The post mortem examination on his dead body was performed in Civil Hospital, Gharota, Pathankot and the First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 3 cause of death was given as the injury to the vital organ (brain), which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was ante-mortem. On his death she became entitled to the insured amount of Rs.3,20,000/- under the Policy; being the nominee/assignee/widow. She duly informed opposite party No.1 about his death, vide Notice dated 19.10.2011 and requested it to proceed further under the Policy for the payment of the claim. She further issued letters dated 20.12.2011 and 10.5.2012 to it for the payment of the claim amount but the same was not paid. The non- payment of that amount by opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. She prayed for the issuance of directions to both the opposite parties to pay the said sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, as the principal claim amount, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the actual payment thereof and Rs.20,000/-, as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed independent written replies. Opposite party No.1 in its written reply did not dispute that the Policy was obtained from it by Ravinder Pal through opposite party No.2, after the payment of the premium and that the complainant was appointed by him as his nominee/assignee. It also did not deny that after the death of the insured, the claim was lodged with it by the complainant. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that the complainant failed to send the requisite documents to it, which included the Post Mortem Report, FIR, Police Report, Panchnama, Death Certificate, ID Proof and Payment Voucher, in spite of the fact she was First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 4 repeatedly requested to submit those documents, vide letters dated 15.11.2011, 3.2.2012 and 21.3.2012. In the last letter, it was mentioned that in case she failed to deposit those documents within 7 days, her claim shall be closed. In spite of that, the documents were not submitted. As she herself failed to complete the formalities by way of submission of requisite documents, so she is debarred from filing the present complaint. The premium was paid in its office at Ghaziabad and Policy was also issued by that office itself. Therefore, the District Forum at Gurdaspur has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the complaint. It prayed for the dismissal thereof under Section 26 of the Act.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its written reply admitted that it had received Rs.4,500/- from Ravinder Pal against the insurance policy, vide receipt No.2308058 and that it had issued the ID number for facilitation of the insurance benefits. While denying the other allegations made against it, it pleaded that the complainant has deliberately, intentionally and knowingly misled the District Forum by concealing the actual and most relevant facts. She concealed the fact that the Policy had been gifted by it to the insured/deceased, for which no consideration was charged. It is only a Marketing Company and in that capacity is procuring insurance business for opposite party No.1. The insured had purchased its product and in consideration thereof the Policy was so gifted by virtue of the Scheme launched by it. It is not doing any insurance related business. The cause of action has accrued only within the territorial limits of Delhi, as the Policy was issued from that office and, as such, First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 5 the District Forum, Gurdaspur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It had no role in the settlement of the claim made by the complainant after the death of the insured. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly held by the District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. While recording that finding, it totally ignored the evidence produced by the complainant to the effect that it was the agent of opposite party No.2, who approached the insured in his house situated in Gurdaspur district for the sale of the Policy and the premium amount was also received by that agent at that place itself and that the Policy was also delivered at the house of the insured itself. That constitutes a part of the cause of action and by virtue of Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, the District Forum at Gurdaspur had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In these circumstances the finding recorded by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, while supporting the finding recorded by the District Forum, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that from the evidence, it firmly stands proved First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 6 that not only the premium was paid at Ludhiana but even the Policy was issued from Ghaziabad. No part of the cause of action ever accrued within the limits of District Forum, Gurdaspur and a correct finding to that effect was recorded by it and there is no ground for upsetting that well reasoned finding.
9. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum recorded the finding that no cause of action had arisen to the complainant at Gurdaspur on the basis of the documents produced by the parties. It failed to understand the meaning of the cause of action and committed an illegality by not going through the other evidence produced on the record for determining if any part of cause of action had accrued within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum or not.
10. According to Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, the complaint can be instituted in the District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises wholly or in part. Cause of action means a bundle of facts, which the complainant is required to prove in order to establish the right claimed in the complaint. The place where the premium amount was paid by the insured and where the policy was received by him forms part of the cause of action, as in order to succeed in the complaint the complainant was required to prove those facts also. No doubt, the Certificate of Insurance, Ex.C2, purports to have been issued by the office of opposite party No.1 at Ghaziabad and the receipt regarding payment of premium Ex.C-3 purports to have been issued by opposite party No.2 from its Branch Office at Ludhiana but it was specifically First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 7 deposed by the complainant in her affidavit Ex.C-1 that her husband Ravinder Pal was approached at his residential Village situated in Tehsil Pathankot by the official of opposite party No.2 for the purpose of insuring him and received Rs.4,500/- on 9.8.2011 at that place. At the time of arguments, it was also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the Certificate of Insurance, Ex.C-2, was received by the insured at his said residential address, which appears to be correct as the said address is noted in the Certificate of Insurance.
11. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, opposite party No.1 proved on record the affidavit of Ranjit Singh Kalra, Divisional Officer, Ex.OP-1. In that affidavit, he did not rebut the deposition made by the complainant that the agent of opposite party No.2 came to the insured at his Village in Tehsil Pathankot and received the premium at that place itself. Ranjit Singh Kalra in his affidavit has not deposed that the insured had come to Ludhiana to make the payment of the premium or that the insurance policy was collected by him from the office at Ghaziabad. In fact, the evidence produced by the complainant that the official of opposite party No.2 came to the Village of insured for the purpose of insuring him and collected the premium of Rs.4,500/- at that place has remained unrebutted. Thus, a part of cause of action accrued within the local limits of the jurisdiction of District Forum at Gurdaspur.
12. It has not been disputed by the opposite parties that the insured died in his Village itself, which was within the local limits of jurisdiction of the said District Forum. It was held by Chhattisgarh First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 8 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. NEELAM SINGH AND OTHERS [I(2007) CPJ 365] that the District Forum of the place where the death of the insured takes place has also the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the payment of claim regarding death.
13. From our above discussion, we conclude that the District Forum, Gurdaspur has the territorial jurisdiction, as the part of cause of action had arisen within its local limits. Therefore, the finding recorded by it to the contrary cannot be sustained.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the same on merits. The parties are directed to appear before it on 10.3.2015. Records of the District Forum be returned immediately.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) February 11, 2015 MEMBER Bansal First Appeal No. 378 of 2014. 9