ORDER
(Passed this on 06th October, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This complaint against an Insurance Company is regarding non payment of double benefits under the policy.
02. Late Captain Rakesh Grover ( hereinafter referred to as ¨the deceased¨ ) was real brother of the complainant. The deceased was earlier employed with Air India as ground staff member and thereafter he worked as a Flying Instructor with private companies. He had a license to fly aircraft and was thus a pilot by profession. He had purchased many insurance policies from the Opposite Party, which is an Insurance Company. In five policies the complainant was shown as nominee. Those five policies were double benefits policies. If the insured died in an accident his nominee would get double the assured amount. Before his death the deceased was working as an Flying Instructor with a private Flying Club at Aligarh. On 29.7.2011 while he was on board giving instruction, the aircraft crashed and he died. He was a bachelor.
03. After his death the complainant made claim under double benefit scheme of the policy to the OP. The OP paid him Rs.1,00,000/- under each five policies in which he was a nominee. Since the deceased died in an accident, the OP should have paid double the assured sum i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- under each policies. The deceased had taken one more double benefit policy bearing no. 970149884 in which his other brother Subhash was a nominee.
The OP had earlier paid Subhash Rs.1,00,000/- only. When Subhash sent a notice to the OP, additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to him. When he sought explanation from the OP, he was told that when the deceased took the policies he was working on administrative side in Air India. But he did not inform the OP about his change of job as a flying instructor and therefore the OP decided that since the deceased was working in
non insurable scheme double benefit was not payable. This decision is said to be arbitery and wrong. Hence, it is prayed to direct the OP to pay him additional amount Rs. 5,00,000/- under the policies along with compensation and cost.
04. OP filed written version and raised some preliminary objections. It is stated that the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. Secondly, the Chairman of the Insurance Company cannot be made a party and so he should be deleted. In para wise reply to the complaint it is not disputed that the deceased had taken five policies which were double benefit policies if death of an insured occured in an accident. But as per the terms and conditions of the policies the complainant was not entitled to claim double benefits and therefore that benefit was denied to him. It is also not denied that the deceased died in accident while giving flying instruction at Aligarh. But at that time he was a pilot when he died and therefore double benefit was not payable.
05. It is admitted that in similar kind of policy no. 970149884 the nominee was paid double the sum assured; but it was wrongly paid and is recoverable. But on such wrong payment the complainant cannot claim the benefit. It is denied that the reason for rejecting double benefit is wrong and arbitery. The sum assured has already been paid to the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
06. We have heard the counsels for both the parties. Perused the documents, particularly the policy, its terms and conditions. After due consideration of the same we record our findings for the reasons given below.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
07. Considering the reply of the OP to the complaint, the dispute lies in a narrow compass. Terms and conditions of the policy have to be examined to appreciate rival contentions. But before embarking upon that, a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the forum will have to decided.
08. Counsel for the OP submitted that the OP has its office in Mumbai and all five policies were taken from Borivali Branch of Mumbai. Even cause of action also arose out side Nagpur district. Therefore, he contends, this forum gets no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. A perusal of the policies would show that the same were issued by Branch having code no. 935, which is Borivali branch. It can also be verified from the document no.2 filed by the
complainant . This is a notice given by the complainant to OP wherein it is clearly mentioned that all the five policies were attached to Borivali Br. No.935 and all documents were sent to Borivali Br. Even the complainant has not denied this fact. The deceased died at Aligarh and it was Borivali Br. which settled the claim and then refused to give double benefits. So even cause of action to file the complaint arose in Mumbai. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant works in Nagpur therefore this forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaint. We do not concur with this submission of the learned counsel for the complainant. Section 11 (2) (a)&(b) of the Consumer Protection Act specifically provides that jurisdiction of the forum depends upon the residence or working place of the OP and not that of the complainant, or where cause of action wholly or partly arises. Hon´ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (1) CPR 28 (SC) has made it clear that the expression ´branch office´ in the amended Section 17 (2) of the Act, which is pari materia to Section 11 (2) of the Act, would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Admittedly in the present case no branch office of the OP at Nagpur is made a party nor any cause of action arose in Nagpur. Therefore looking to these facts we are satisfied that the forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint.
09 When a court or forum lacks jurisdiction to decide a dispute, judicial propriety demands to refrain from give findings on the contentious issues of the dispute. So we refrain ourselves from divulging on the main issue as to whether, under the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to claim double benefit under the policies. The complainant has chosen wrong forum to get his complaint decided. He should have filed it before that forum, which has jurisdiction. Therefore for aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(2) No order as to cost.
(3) Copy of the order be given to both the parties free of
cost.
