AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.6.2001 passed by the DF whereby the DF has dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Facts from which the appeal emanates are that the complainant''s husband late S. Maghar Singh was insured with respondent under insurance policy No. 160116626 for Rs. 1.00 lac. Policy was obtained in District Khanna, Punjab dated 26.12.1987. The deceased was working in M/s. Deekay Shipbroaker Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The husband of the complainant died on 18.1.1990. After his death in Delhi the claim was raised by the widow before the District Forum, Jammu because she was residing in Jammu. Respondent was summoned. They resisted the complaint on various grounds inter alia on the ground of lack of jurisdiction also. It will not be out of place to mention here that the points raised in the objections were that the information of death of the deceased was concealed by the complainant and the policy has already lapsed but the premium was deposited for its renewal after the death of the deceased. Secondly, it was averred that the claim was barred by time. It was filed after three years after the cause of action. Lastly claim was resisted on the ground that District Forum, Jammu had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Insurance policy is admitted. Sum of insurance is admitted. Death of the insured is not questioned. The DF rejected the pleas taken by the respondent except the plea of jurisdiction. It is only on this point of lack of jurisdiction that the complaint was dismissed.
HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant. We have perused the record also. Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Section 46, Life Insurance Act of 1938 which envisages that the holder of a policy issued by a insurer in respect of insurance business transacted in India after the commencement of the Act have the right, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy or in any agreement relating thereto to receive payment in India of any sum secured thereby and to sue for any relief in respect of the policy in any Court of competent jurisdiction in India. This section has been dealt with by our Hon''ble High Court in Sukh Dev Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it was held that the insured can demand the relief of payment from any place in India. Learned Counsel for appellant has rightly contended that the complaint could not have been dismissed on this scope of lack of jurisdiction. Not only this our Consumer Protection Act amended Section 9, given jurisdiction to entertain complaint whether the O.P. actually resides or carries on business directly or through Branch Office. Admittedly O.P. has branch office in Jammu. Insurance is admitted, death of the insured also is admitted. Illiterate widow is pursuing the case. She is resident of Jammu. In the ordinary course she should have arrayed the Branch Office of the respondent/Company at Jammu as party but that has not been done. However, claim could not be rejected on this scope as the main party Insurance Company has appeared and has contested the claim after filing the objections. DF has disposed of all the pleas taken by the Insurance Company. It will not be feasible now to remand the case for fresh trial after making the Branch Office as party. As the case has already been contested, Branch Office cannot improve upon the case already contested so in order to avoid the unnecessary delay we set aside the order of the DF, allow the complaint and direct the respondents to make payment of Rs. 1.00 lac along with 9% interest from the date of complaint i.e. 23.4.1997. Payments be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Appeal allowed.