Delhi

StateCommission

A/22/2018

TRILOK CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

YOGESH KR. NARULA

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision:01.04.2019

 

 

First Appeal No.22/2018

(Arising out of the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 332/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), New Delhi)

 

Trilok Chand,

S/o Lt. Shri Makhan Lal,

R/o B-118. MIG Flats,

Keshav Puram,

New Delhi -110035.                                                                  …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Prakash Deep Building,

Second Floor, 7, Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi

 

ALSO AT

Aviva Tower, Sector Road,

Opp. Golf Phase –V, Sector -43,

Gurugram. Haryana                                                                 ….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) against order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI) New Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.332/2017 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed on the ground that District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
2. Appellant/complainant is present in person and has submitted that the registered office of respondent/OP is at 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi -110001.  It is also submitted that after passing of the impugned order, some of the amount has also been refunded to him by the respondent/OP to Delhi office. It is submitted that even the policy in question was issued from the registered office of the respondent/OP and even the premiums were deposited there only as such District Forum, New Delhi had the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint case.  It is submitted that District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.
3. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/OP to oppose the present appeal.
4. We have heard the appellant/complainant and perused the material on record.
5. We find that the respondent/OP is having its registered office at 2^nd Floor, Prakashdeep Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001. Even, respondent/OP has issued policy account statement to appellant/complainant from its registered office. As per appellant/complainant, even policy is issued to him from aforesaid office.  In Rohit Srivastava vs Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., FA No.1728/2016 decided on 5.7.2017, National Commission has held therein that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party was situated in Delhi, the State Commission had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The relevant portion of judgement is as under:

“Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that the order cannot be sustained.It is not in dispute that the Registered Office of Opposite Party No.1 Company is situated in Delhi, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi and therefore, in the light of clear provision contained in Section 17(2)(a), which stipulates that a Complaint can be instituted in a State Commission, within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party actually carries on business. In view of the said provision, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that since the Registered Office of the first Opposite Party is situated in Delhi, the State Commission did have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In the light of the said provision, in our view, it was open to the Complainant to choose the Forum to file the Complaint, which on the second occasion he decided to file before the State Commission at Delhi.”

 

6. In view of the above discussion, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the District Forum for re-considering the matter afresh on the point of territorial jurisdiction after considering the material discussed above including the material on record.
7. Parties to appear before the District Forum on 14.05.2019.
8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.      

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)​

President

(Salma Noor)​

Member