NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS vs POONAM SHAHI & ORS

By this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company") and its functionaries call in question the legality of the order, dated 21.11.2007, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (for short "the State Commission"), allowing the Complaint filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3/Complainants. By the impugned order, the State

Commission has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainants a sum of 9,90,480/- alongwith interest as compensation under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme taken by the Employer, namely, M/s Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemical Ltd., Respondent No. 4 herein, for the benefit of one of its employee late Shri M.P. Shahi. The State Commission has also directed payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount from 28.07.2000 till actual payment.

Briefly stated, the material facts, necessary for disposal of the present Appeal, are that: late Shri Shahi was working in the afore-noted Company as Deputy Manager. He was found missing from 18.04.1999. After hectic search, his body was recovered on 20.04.1999, lying near the pipeline, under water. An FIR was registered. The post mortem of the body was got conducted. The cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage due to hard blunt object, which was ante mortem in nature. On account of his death, the Complainants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, preferred claim with the Insurance Company under the afore-noted policy. However, the claim was repudiated on the ground that as per the investigations, got conducted by the Insurance company, the death was on account of suicide or self-injury which was excluded from the purview of the terms and conditions of the policy.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Insurance Company, the Complainants preferred the Complaint before the State Commission at Patna.

Although the Employer supported the claim but the Insurance Company resisted the complaint on diverse grounds. One of the grounds urged was that since the Insured Refinery was at Assam; the deceased was employed at Assam; and the accident had also taken place at Assam, the State Commission at Patna had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

As noted above, the objection was rejected and the Complaint was allowed with the afore-noted directions.

Hence, the present Appeal.

Despite service of notice, the Complainants remain unrepresented at the time of final hearing. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. P.K. Seth, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. Ajit Pudussery, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4.

In support of his submission that the State Commission was not justified in entertaining the Complaint, merely on the ground that the Insurance Company had a Branch office at Patna, Mr. Seth has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 135.

Having carefully gone through the said decision, we are of the view that it is on all fours to the facts of the present case and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Taking note of even the amendment in the Act, w.e.f. 15.03.2002, in Sonic Surgical (supra) , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"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 can 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 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. [vide G.P. Singh''s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]"

While dealing with the said objection, the State Commission has held that since the Insurance company had a Branch at Muzaffarpur in Bihar, in the light of the decision of this Commission 26.08.2002 in Revision Petition No. 1563 of 1999 , it had jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

Applying the principle laid down in the afore-extracted paragraph, merely because the Insurance Company has a Branch office at Muzaffapur, is not sufficient to clothe the State Commission at Patna with the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, as the cause of action arose only at Assam.

Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the State Commission at Patna lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Having arrived at the said conclusion, we refrain from expressing opinion on the other points raised in the Appeal, particularly on the question whether it was a case of accident or suicide. 12. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Since the Complainants are not represented before us, we are not directing the State Commission, Patna to transfer the Complaint to the State Commission at Assam, at Guwahati but it is needless to add that it would be open to the Complainants to file Complaint before an appropriate forum, if so advised, alongwith application for condonation of delay. In that event, their application for condonation of delay shall be considered keeping in view the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 SCC (3) 583.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. Statutory deposit shall be transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund.