Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986 (herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant’s husband has purchased a LIC policy from the OP after duly examined by the doctor. The insurance policy has been purchased for sum assured of Rs.92,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that the insured died on 26.05.2003, thereafter the claim was made but OP remained silent. So, finding the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.
4. Per contra, the OP No.1,2,3,4 & 7 filed written version stating that complainant is the nominee being wife of policy holder. They denied all allegations. It is averred that no corroboration of the agent of the OPs was there for sun stroke caused to the complainant. They averred that date of death of insured is 31.05.2003 but not 26.05.2003. On the other hand there is no insurable interest credited during life of insured. According to the Ops, the sum assured died before commencement of policy. As the insured has died, they have repudiated the claim. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these Ops.
5. OP No.5 filed separate written version stating that he is not necessary party to this case. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the complaint.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ Therefore, the Forum orders directing the Ops to pay all benefits along with the assured sum with 12 % interest to the complainant from the date of application till the date of payment and also Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the case within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the husband of the complainant has neither been examined by the doctor nor alive during the period of insurance including the date of commencement of the policy. He further submitted that there is already CBI case ordered by the Commission and the CBI already chargesitted. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law involved in this case. He further submitted that no part of cause of action arose at Gajapati. But learned District Forum has passed order which is without jurisdiction. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. The question arises in this case whether the complaint is to be entertained by the District Forum, Rayagada. (2) Whether the policy in question is valid one.
10. So far lack of territorial jurisdiction concerned, we go by the Section-11 (2) of the Act which is as follows:-
11.(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, (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In Sonic Surgical -Vrs- National Insurance Co.Ltd.,2010 AIR SCW 298 Hon’ble Apex Court held that a complaint can be filed in a District Forum when main office or branch office is situates and cause of action arises. Applying the above provisions of law and the ratio of the decision with due regard we find that the entire policy etc. has been purchased at Rayagada from the agent of the LIC as per the allegation of the complainant. The complaint is silent where the complainant died but the complainant alleged that he died on 26.05.2003 and OP No.7 is agent of LIC office of Rayagada but there being no any cause of action, or part of cause of action arose there at Gajapati as per evidence of the complainant, we are of the opinion that learned District Commission lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
12. This Commission while disposing the appeal came to know that the LIC agent has committed certain fraud in collecting the premium from the husband of the complainant and also issuance of policy thereby for which this Commission has passed order to hand over the case CBI. Although such order has been challenged in Hon’ble High Court but result of same is awaited. On the other hand, the FIR has been lodged against complainant and charge sheet has been filed against the agent of LIC in question. When the Charge sheet in CBI case has been already filed and this Commission has passed order the case for CBI, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has committed gross error by not disallowing the complaint. However, we are of the view that in such circumstances when the criminal cases are pending, the deficiency in service on the part of the OP is hardly to be found out. In view of aforesaid discussions the entire impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.
The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the CONFONET or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
