Delhi

New Delhi

CC/581/2014

PREM CHANDRA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.581/2014                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Prem Chandra Gupta,

Jagdambika Bhawan,

C-4/20, Acharya Niketan,

Mayur Vihar Ph.I,

Delhi-110091.

New Address.

11/V/E, Type 5 (Near Sunday Market),

NAMRUP, DISTT. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM-786623.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     The Managing Director,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

GE PLAZA, Airport Road,

Yerawad, Pune-411006.

 

2.      The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

B-37-38, Inner Circle,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

3.    The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

First Floor, 4, Shahnajaf Road,

             Lucknow-226001

Uttar Pradesh.

Opposite Parties.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA  PRESIDENT  

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one policy bearing NO.0008760824 by paying a premium of Rs.7654/- on 1^st May 2005 on yearly premium titled as Bajaj Allianz Cashgain Economy Policy.  It is alleged by the complainant that after receiving the policy documents he came to know that the alleged policy is for 20 years and the premium amount was also changed from Rs.7654/- to Rs.7577/- as such he lodge a complaint regarding the same with the OP Insurance Co. and requested for the revised policy with personal accident and home cover policy but nothing has been done by OP to resolve his grievance.  In the present complaint, the complainant has also filed another claim under other policy i.e. Bajaj Alliance Century Plus II taken in the year 2009 by his father Sh. Girza Dayal Gupta in which he is nominee and wherein he was informed that the policy was of one time premium policy with the death benefit of Rs.1,25,000/-.  It is alleged that after the death of his father he had applied with the OP Insurance Co. for the death benefit as well as for the amount due on the units purchased by his father.  It is further alleged that the OP Co. paid a sum of Rs.24,500.89/- to him against the total unit 1643.4394 @ 14.9083 per unit and rejected the death claim, hence this complaint.

2.    Complaint has been contested by the OP.  Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits and their written submissions respectively.

3.    We heard the argument  advanced at  the bar,  during the course of argument  the OP has strongly raised the issue of  territorial jurisdiction.  Hence, it is necessary to decide it first before disposing of the present complaint on other issues.  Perusal of the file shows that the policy in question was issued from the Lucknow  Office of the OP Insurance Co., the communication made by the complainant regarding his claim was also made to the Lucknow Office of OP Co. the statement of account placed on record by the complainant proves that the payment of the claim amount was made by the OP Insurance Co. from its Lucknow Office .  Hence, neither the policy issuing Office of the OP nor the cause of action i.e. claim settlement by the OP arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

4.     Before adverting to the disposal of this case, it is expedient to quote the relevant provision in this respect and the same is as follows:

 Section 11- Jurisdiciton of the District Forum –

1.          Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) . 

2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the locallimit of whose jurisdiction –

(a)  The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one , at the time of the institution of the complaint , actually or voluntarily resides or ( carries on business or has a branch office or ) personally work for gain or

(b)  Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on the business or has a branch office), or personally work for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as case may be , acquiesce in such institution, or

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

      we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the relevant order is as follows:

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. 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 Ld.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]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

5.    Perusal of the file shows that the policy in question was issued from the Lucknow  Office of the OP Insurance Co., the communication made by the complainant regarding his claim was also made to the Lucknow Office of OP Co. the statement of account placed on record by the complainant proves that the payment of the claim amount was made by the OP Insurance Co. from its Lucknow Office .  Hence, neither the policy issuing Office of the OP nor the cause of action i.e. claim settlement by the OP arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

6.    We  are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the     territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction in view of Sonic Surgical case (Supra).

7.     The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexures against receipt.  A copy of the complaint be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms.

The copy of the order be sent to parties free of cost by post.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on_____________.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                           (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

                                                       MEMBER                                                    MEMBER