Delhi

North

CC/438/2024

JAGMOHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

HARIOM MISHRA

19 Dec 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 438/2024

 

In the matter of

Jagmohan

S/o Shri Shanti Lal

R/o C-1/14, Harit Vihar, Gali No. 3

Pepsi Road, Burari

Delhi-110084                                                       …      Complainant

Versus

M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager/ Office Bearer

Kandamkulathy Towers

Mahatma Gandhi Road

Opp. Maharajas College Ground

Ernakulum, Kerala

Also AT

M/s New India Assurance Company Limited

Through its Branch Manager/ Office Bearer

4046, Naya Bazar Road, Rui Mandi

Sadar Bazar, Delhi- 110006                                  …      Opposite Party

 

ORDER

19/12/2024

Present: Shri Hariom Mishra, Ld. Advocate  for Complainant.

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. On last date of hearing, we have heard the argument of Shri Hari Om Mishra, Ld. Advocate for Complainant on admissibility of this complaint including the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. We have also perused the records and pleadings of in the complaint.
2. Before going on the issue of admissibility of this complaint, it is important to note some basic facts of this complaint. Complainant herein is said to be resident of Burari, Delhi, and he has filed copy of his Aadhaar Card in support of the said address. However, the vehicle bearing no. HR 55 U 7515, which is subject matter of this complaint, is registered with Transport Authority, Gurgaon and the said registration certificate (RC) indicates the address of the Complainant as “House No. 234, Nathupur, Gurgaon- 122001 (Haryana)”. The said vehicle was insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limited (OP herein) from its Jalandhar, Punjab Office. In the said policy, the Complainant is shown as the resident of “124, Village Shakarpur, Gurgaon- 122001 (Haryana)”. The same address is also in the Permit Authorisation Certificate dated 22.08.2019 issued by RTA, Gurgaon for the vehicle in question.
3. We observed that different documents so submitted by the Complainant indicate different addresses of the Complainant. Only the copy of the Aadhaar submitted by the Complainant indicates the address of the Burari, Delhi which falls within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. However, the said address of the Complainant is not shown in any other document with respect to the vehicle in question, issued by the concerned Regional Transport Authority and the insurance policy issued by the OP.
4. The Aadhaar was issued to the Complainant in the year 2011 but the vehicle was registered in the name of the Complainant the year 2014. The policy issued in 2020 also indicates the address in Gurgaon. As the registration certificate is of a later date, the address given in the registration certificate is current address. It is also to be noted here that the Complainant has filed an affidavit with the OP insurance company for processing the claim. In the said affidavit dated 03.09.2021, the Complainant has written his address as “124, Village Sakatput, Gurgaon, Haryana”.
5. It is important to mention here that for registering the vehicle in the name of any person, the address poof of the purchaser/ owner is required to be submitted. Hence the address given in the Registration Certificate, which is later in date, appears to be current address of the Complainant. As the RC, insurance policy and permit issued by the RTA, Gurgaon were issued subsequent to the date of issuance of Aadhaar and also as the affidavit of the Complainant indicates the address of the Complainant in Gurgaon, we are of the opinion that the current address of the Complainant is not of Delhi as alleged by the Complainant in the complaint. The RC, permit and the Insurance Certificates are also valid address proof and as these documents are current and subsequent to the date of issuance of Aadhaar, we are considering the address given in RC, permit, Insurance Certificate and affidavit as current and correct.
6. In this context, we would like to refer to section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which reads as under:

"34: Jurisdiction of District Commission

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local 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, ordinarily 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 the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

(3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.”

7. It is indeed a fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has expanded the jurisdiction of the District Commissions by permitting the Complainants to approach the District Commission, in whose jurisdiction, the complainant resides or personally works for gain. However unlike clauses (a) and (b) of the section 34 (2), the phrase “at the time of the institution of the complaint” is missing from clauses (c) and (d) of the Section 34 (2) of the CPA, 2019. Not adding the phrase “at the time of the institution of the complaint” in clauses (c) and (d) cannot be termed as an error, and this Commission cannot question the wisdom of the legislature in enacting a particular law. If the phrase “at the time of the institution of the complaint” is not included in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 34 (2) CPA, 2019, these clauses are to be interpreted as to mean “at the relevant time” or “at the time when cause of action arose”. In the case in hand, the relevant time is the time when the OP-1 issued the disconnection notice dated 21.01.2022. There is no document to show that the Complainant was residing at Burari, Delhi address, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, at the relevant time. He has also not pleaded that he is working for gain at any address within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
8. In the case in hand, the documents so submitted by the Complainant indicate that the address given in RC, permit, Insurance Certificate and affidavit are current of the years 2014, 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively, and the address given in Aadhaar is old address of the year 2011.
9. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant states that as the Aadhaar card indicates the address of the Complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, he can file this complaint in this Commission. We do not agree with his submission. The documents so relied upon by the Complainant are old and the latest documents so filed by the Complainant indicate that the Complainant is not a resident within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, in our opinion, the address of Burari, Delhi is not the current address, where the Complainant was residing at the relevant time of lodging insurance claim. Accordingly, the Complainant cannot invoke territorial jurisdiction of this Commission using old address of Burari, Delhi using very old Aadhaar Card.
10. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also argued that as one of the branch offices of the OP, as indicated in the memo of the parties, is within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, this Commission can exercise its jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. We do not agree with this argument of Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Merely having one of the branch offices of the OP within its jurisdiction, the Consumer Commission cannot assume territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In this context, reliance is places on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance vs Gopal Gupta [2013 (3) CPR 690 (NC)] in which Hon’ble National Commission while relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonic Surgical vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 1 SCC 135] held that the complaint case with regard to insurance claim should be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum where the cause of action has arisen or at the place where the policy issuing branch is situated. In Sonic Surgical (supra) case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue and held as under:    

“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 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 bench 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.”

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also emphasised on the issue of cause of action while deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the erstwhile consumer forum.
12. The accident of the vehicle took place in Velanchery, Kerala. The Complainant has not annexed any document to show that which office of the OP was handling the claim, but as the legal notice on behalf of the Complainant was sent to the OP at its Ernakulam, Kerala address, which is not the registered address of the OP and also in view of the fact that accident took place in Kerala, it is assumed that the claim was being handled and processed by Ernakulam office of the OP. Hence, neither the policy branch of the OP nor the claim processing office of OP is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
13. In this context, we would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Medanta Medicity vs V S Tyagi [NCDRC FA No. 1383/2017, decided on 11.08.2017. In this judgment, Hon’ble National Commission has held that the complaint can be filed at a place, where the business of OP is monitored. In this context, Hon’ble National Commission, in Medanta Medicity case (Supra) has held as under:

“7. In so far as the location of the branch office of the OP is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in their order in "Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited" (supra), held that the consumer complaint could not be filed at all places, where the branch office of an opposite party was located.  It was held that the expression 'branch office' in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action had arisen.  The judgment in the "Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited" (supra), however, does not debar a complainant to file a complaint at a place where the OPs are 'carrying on their business'  The expression 'branch office' has been listed alongwith the expression'carries on business', and hence, the complaint could be filed at a place, from where the business of the OP was being monitored.” (Emphasis supplied.)

14. In the case in hand, the insurance was issued by Jalandhar, Punjab Branch and the communication with respect to the claim of the Complainant ware made with Ernakulam, Kerala branch offices of OP. None of these branch offices of the OP are situated within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
15. At this stage, we would also like to refer to judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of R B Jagdish Prasad vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [NCDRC FA No. 259/2008, decided on 22.07.2008], in which Hon’ble National Commission, while dealing with similar issue of territorial jurisdiction with respect to the insurance company, has held as under:

“The intent of the law was that everything should not really be centred in the Head Office and the person should be able to institute a complaint wherever there is a Branch Office of the opposite party organization. Reverse is not true, i.e. if the whole cause of action arose in Muzaffar nagar and both the parties are located in Muzaffar nagar, the complaint could not have been filed in Delhi because the Head Office of the Respondent Insurance Company is located in Delhi. This will be defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

16. Hon’ble National Commission, while deciding R B Jagdish Prasad (supra) case, has dealt with specific issue of insurance company and has held that even if the insurance company is having its head office within the territorial jurisdiction of a Forum, the complaint cannot be filed if no cause of action has arisen at the head office of the insurance company. In the case in hand, the cause of action has arisen either in Jalandhar or Ernakulam branch offices of the OP and this District Commission does not territorial jurisdiction over such office of OP.
17. This complaint appears to have been filed by the Complainant before this Commission for the sake of convenience. The convenience of the litigant is not a valid ground for deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.
18. We would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Union of India v. Cipla Ltd., [(2017) 5 SCC 262], in which, while dealing with the issue of "forum shopping" by litigants, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“

150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd., [(1998) 5 SCC 310] wherein it was observed that the respondent/ plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action, namely, a collision between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything else.

 

155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle that the Court is required to adopt a functional test vis-à-vis the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not.

”

19. This complaint is squarely covered in Cipla case (supra) as we are of the opinion that the Complainant herein is deliberately trying to come within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission when the documents so filed by him indicate that the current address of the Complainant is not within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
20. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is not a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and also that the policy issuing and Claim repudiating office of the OP are also not situated within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
21. Hence, we dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. However, in the interest of justice, we grant liberty to the Complainant to approach the forum of appropriate jurisdiction for adjudication of the case, if so advised. Needless to say we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and if the Complainant approached any other Forum/ Court, the same shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. While approaching the forum of appropriate jurisdiction, the Complainant may seek the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering Works vs PSG industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583], for explaining the delay in initiating appropriate proceedings, if any.
22. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping certified copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member