Dated: 01.03.2024

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal by Branch Manager, LIC of India, Barh, District Patna (O.P. no. 1) and Branch Manager, LIC of India, Nalanda Branch at Biharsharif (O.P.no. 2) is directed against the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nalanda Biharsharif in Complaint case no. 88 of 2014 by which appellant no. 1 has been ordered to pay to the complainant –respondent the insured amount of four life insurance policies of Rs. 50,000/- each making a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation with 10% per annum interest on the insured amount with effect from the date of filing of complaint within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which to pay interest at the same rate on the other payable amounts also till the date of payment.
2. The case of complainant, namely, Ajay Singh, son of Dwarika Singh is that he is nephew of deceased Kapil Singh. Kapil Singh had taken four life insurance policies of Rs. 50,000/- each bearing policy nos. 529612355, 529612357, 529612359 & 529612360 of Table and term no. 14/20 on 28.12.2012 from O.P. no. 1 in which he was the nominee but he had been described therein as the son of policy holder. In fact he is the Phoshput (a person brought up as son) of Kapil Singh. Kapil Singh died all on a sudden due to loose motions and dehydration at his place on 04.03.2013. He filed claim for payment of the insured amount of all the four policies but his claim was not settled and he was not paid the claim amount by O.P. no. 1. So, he filed the complaint.
3. It has not been stated in the complaint petition that on which date and in which office the claim petition was filed by the complainant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal was heard ex-parte against the respondent. Respondent did not appear inspite of service of registered notice. Perused the record.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that O.P. no. 1 that the claim petition was not filed in his office rather it was filed in the Divisional office of the LIC at Begusarai who had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Therefore, the complainant had no valid cause of action to file the complaint. Similarly, the District Consumer Protection Forum, Nalanda had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since, the policies were issued by Barh Branch of LIC whose regional office is at Patna, the complainant should have filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patna who had territorial jurisdiction over it if, at all he had any valid cause of action though it is supposed that a valid cause of action would have arisen to the complainant only after repudiation of his claim by the branch who had issued the policies concerned. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the complainant has been described in the aforesaid policies as the son of insured person, but the complainant has himself admitted in the complaint that he is not the son of deceased Kapil Singh rather he is his nephew and Poshput (a person brought up as son). On enquiry by Nalanda Branch of LIC a third fact came to light that the complainant is not the nephew or Poshput of Kapil Singh deceased rather he is his cousin. So, whether he is entitled to get the claim amount or not has not been decided in the impugned order.
6. It has further been submitted that without considering and without recording any finding on these issues arising in the case the impugned order has been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nalanda in favour of the complainant. The order is unreasoned, vague and cryptic. So, it is legally not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
7. On considering the facts mentioned above we find and hold that the complainant had no valid cause of action for filing the complaint because his claim had not been repudiated by the policies issuing branch at Barh or its Divisional Office at Patna. We further find and hold that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nalanda at Biharsharif had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed on contest and the impugned order is set aside. The complainant is directed to file fresh claim, if, he so likes, before the Branch Manager of LIC at Barh (O.P. no. 1) who is directed to dispose it of expeditiously according to the rules of his department. Parties to bear their own costs.

Md. Shamim Akhtar                                                                                                       Gita Verma

(Judicial Member)                                                                                                     (Judicial Member)

Md. Fariduzzama