Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/588

NARESH S.JATAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIVA LIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH. R. TIWARI

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 20.04.2016 passed in C.C.No.212/2015 by District Commission, Morena)

 

NARESH SINGH JATAV.                                                                                 …          APPELLANT

 

           Versus

                 

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ANR.                                                    …         RESPONDENTS.

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

 

01.06.2023

 

            Shri Shikhar Pratap Singh appears on behalf of Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                    This appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.212/2015 whereby the District Commission has dismised the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant. 

2.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that he took a life insurance policy from the opposite party no.1-insurance company for himself and his wife. During the policy cover period his wife died and on claim being made after completing all the formalities for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- the insurance company denied to pay the claim. The complaint therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission.

-2-

3.                The opposite parties/respondents resisted the complaint on the ground that the District Commission at Morena had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the policy was issued from Gwalior and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. Even otherwise there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/insurance company. 4.                   The opposite parties/respondents filed an application dated 13.01.2016 stating that as per Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  However, the District Commission vide order dated 19.02.2016 decided the said application and held that the District Commission Morena had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that complicated questions of facts and law which required detailed evidence cannot be decided by the District Commission in summary jurisdiction.

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents-insurance company vehemently argued that prima facie the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission, Morena as the policy was issued at Gwalior and since the insured resided

 

-3-

and died at Morena, it cannot give rise to have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint at Morena.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record and the impugned order, in connection with the rival contentions of the parties regarding territorial jurisdiction, we would like to quote Section 11(2) of Act of 1986, which reads thus:

                   11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum—

                        (1)………

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum 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 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 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 District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or

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

 

8.                Here in the instant matter, admittedly the complainant/appellant resides at Morena. On 10.12.2013 and he took insurance policy from the insurance company situated at Gwalior covering the risk of himself and his wife. Unfortunately, his wife died at Morena. The complainant has nowhere pleaded that opposite parties-insurance company have their any branch at Morena and he made opposite parties situated at Gwalior from where he

-4-

took the policy and head office of the insurance company situated at Gurgaon. His wife is died at Morena. Since there is no branch office of the insurance company at Morena, it cannot be said that the District Commission, Morena had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

9.                Thus in our considered view, the District Commission, Morena had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of Section 11 of the Act. We are in full agreement with learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents and do not agree with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent.

10.              It is pertinent to mention here that matter has to be decided as per law and not on the convenience of the parties. Thus we find that the District Commission has erred in entertaining the complaint without having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. We find that legal approach of the District Commission was not proper.

11.              Thus without going into merits of the case, in view of the above discussion, we are of a considered view that the District Commission Morena had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is set aside and consequently, the complaint being not maintainable before the District Commission Morena is dismissed.

 

 

-5-

12.              In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the complainant/appellant shall be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available to him in law, claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

 

                     (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Presiding Member                     Member