AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh,Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.2139 of 2011 in which order dated 30.11.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.99 of 2011 was challenged, inter alia praying for :
(i) Setting aside the orders of the State Commission dated 08.11.2016 and District Forum dated 30.11.2011.
(ii) Payment of Insured Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and litigation charges.
While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent in the said FA No. 2139 of 2011 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent was OP before the District Forum in the CC No. 99 of 2011. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 15.01.2020. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 03.08.2023 and 06.07.2023 respectively.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Uttar Pradesh Government launched a welfare scheme in August 2004 to indemnify the farmer(s) who dies due to unnatural death and the family will receive compensation of Rs.1.00 lacs. Complainant stated that the UP Government increased the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- w.e.f. 23.05.2012. The agreement regarding policy was executed with ICICI and it was the duty of the ICICI to do timely payment . Husband of the complainant Sri Hari Singh @ Hari Ram who was the holder of land was murdered on the intervening night of 21-22.04.2008. The police was informed and case under section 302 IPC was registered. The papers were forwarded to the Insurance Company through D.M. office. However, the money was not received though it should have been received within three months. Being aggrieved of non payment by the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum which dismissed the complaint of the Complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence the Complainant is before this Commission now in the present Revision Petition.
Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 08.11.2016 of the State Commission mainly on the ground that Order of the District Forum is illegal because office of the OP exists in Aligarh and case No. 177 of 2010 ( Bijay Pal Vs. ICICI) and case No. 211 of 2010 ( Dinesh Vs. ICICI) have been allowed in part by this Commission and money has been paid in both the cases.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
5.1. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the case can be filed in any District where branch of the Respondent is located and in the present case, Respondent has a branch in Aligarh. Counsel further argued that before District Forum Etawah in CC No. 269 of 2016, jurisdiction point was raised by the OP, which was discarded by the President and money was directed to be paid. Reliance is placed on order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayan Vs. Niranjan Modak AIR 1985 SC 111. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in FA No. 2819 of 2005 decided on 17.05.2017 allowed the new amendments and thus petitioner is entitled for five lacs rupees w.e.f. 01.10.2008 and that both the Fora below committed error in dismissing the complaint.
5.2 Counsel for the Respondent argued that both the Fora below have rightly held that District Forum at Aligarh had no jurisdiction and reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Limited ( 2010) 1 SCC 135. Counsel further argued that both the Fora below have given concurrent findings and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi ( Chandra ) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited ( 2011) 11 SCC 269.
Section 17 ( 2) of the Act, as it was amended in 2003 and as it stands today, is as follows:
“[(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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 either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.]”
In the instant case, the complaint was filed on 28.08.2011 i.e. after the said amendment. Hence, the amended section is applicable in the instant case. No doubt, a plain reading of Section 17 (2) (a) states that complaint can be instituted in the jurisdiction of the Commission, where the opposite party at the time of institution of complaint, carries on business or has a Branch Office. In the instant case, the opposite party has a Branch at Aligarh. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) observed that an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17 ( 2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence and held that expression “Branch Office” in the amended Section 17 (2) would mean the Branch Office where the cause of action has arisen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that no doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17 (2) (b) but such departure is sometimes necessary ( as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
It is to be noted that in the Sonic Surgical ( supra ), it was a situation where the cause of action has arisen in Ambala, the complaint was filed in Chandigarh and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that going by the wording of Section 17 (2) (b), the complainant can file a complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India, where the Branch Office of the insurance company is situated. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the contention of the Appellant in this case stating that it will lead to absurd consequence and will lead to Bench hunting. However, the question arises in the present case is whether the cause of action arose in Lucknow or in Aligarh or in both places. As is borne out from the available records, it was the U.P.Government who has launched a welfare scheme in August, 2004 to indemnify the farmers who died due to unnatural death and under this scheme, the family will receive a particular amount of compensation. Obviously, this scheme was applicable in the entire state of U.P. and the persons covered under the scheme would be residing in different part of the State. Possibly, there might have been one agreement between the State Government and Insurance Company based at State Headquarter i.e. Lucknow but it may not have been the intention that people residing in far flung parts of State of U.P. had to file their claim, if covered under the policy, only at Lucknow. Surely, the intention could have been that the Insurance Company’s branch office having jurisdiction in the area where the claimant / deceased resides / had resided at the time of death would process the claim and would possibly settle the claim at their level or with the approval of their Head Office at Lucknow. If that be the case, in such a situation, the complainant and the deceased being resident of Aligarh can claim that cause of action has arisen in Aligarh. It is not a case where the Petitioner has taken individual policy from the Respondent based at Lucknow. It is seen that orders of the District Forum and State Commission were passed in the absence of the Complainant and without hearing the complainant.
The available records also do not contain the contours of the policy taken up by the Government of U.P for the residents of U.P. Hence this aspect needs to be looked afresh by the District Forum before coming to a definite findings whether cause of action can be said to have arisen only in Lucknow or in Aligarh also and in the later case, the District Forum at Aligarh would have territorial jurisdiction. In case, the District Forum, after perusal of relevant records / policy documents comes to a finding that cause of action arises in Lucknow only, then the Petitioner shall have liberty to file the complaint before the District Forum Lucknow, claiming benefit of limitation period for the period covered since his filing of the complaint before the District Forum Aligarh.
In view of this, we allow the Revision Petition, set aside the order of the State Commission as well as District Forum and remand the case back to the District Forum for fresh disposal on merits, after perusal of all relevant documents required to determine the place of cause of action and after hearing both the sides. Both sides are directed to produce copy of all the relevant documents, in particular the insurance policy / agreement entered into between the Government of U.P. and the respondent insurance Company before the District Forum on the first date of hearing before the District Forum. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 23.10.2023
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.