BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.392 of 2014

Date of Instt. 10.11.2014

Date of Decision :03.07.2015

Sanjeev Kumar Soni son of Jai Paul Soni R/o House No.106, Lambian Mohalla, Sarafan Bazar, Phagwara District Kapurthala.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, 6th Floor, Unit No.601 & 602, Raheja Titanium Office Western Express High Way, Goregoan (E) Mumbai-400063.

2. The Manager, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gulshan Sethi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.KS Minhas Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 through its authorized as well as licensed representative i.e opposite party No.2 approached and contacted complainant's father Jail Paul Soni and somehow convinced and made agreed complainant's father to purchase a insurance policy in the name and for the benefit of complainant from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Complainant's father while believing in opposite parties and upon the good faith of opposite parties and on the assurance of opposite parties, purchased the insurance policy No.500-6229719 dated 31.8.2010. Complainant's father again believing in opposite party No.2 issued three post-dated account payee's cheques out of his bank account No.2863000100416377 with Punjab National Bank, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh of Rs.50,000/- each. The opposite party No.2 honestly and timely paid two annual premiums by way of depositing two account payee's cheque in the account of above insurance policy. Thereafter complainant received a letter dated 11.1.2014 of the opposite party No.1 and therefrom complainant came to know that opposite party No.1 has lapsed his (complainant's) above policy due to nonpayment of third premium. Thereafter complainant made clarification from the drawee bank and astonished and overwhelmed to know that third account payee's cheque of complainant's father was mis-used while conniving with opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.2, and same was presented for crediting the same for the payment of some other client of opposite parties. The cause of action to file the present complaint, arose in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the office of opposite party No.2 is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to continue his above said policy and the third installment/premium amount of the complainant already deposited by his father may be adjusted in his policy.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, raising a preliminary objection to the effect that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that the complainant has with the intention to harass the opposite party company filed the complaint before this Forum. The complainant is a resident of Kapurthala as per his own averment. It is further submitted that a mere perusal of the proposal form for life insurance which was duly filled, signed and submitted by the complainant would reveal that policy was taken by the complainant in Kanpur. Furthermore the policy was sent and delivered at Kanpur,U.P and all correspondence was sent to the complainant Kanpur address. Hence no cause of action has ever arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has failed to prove as how the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked. On merits, they denied the material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.CA-1 to Ex.CA-6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.

6. Without going into merits of the case, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Ex.OP1 is proposal form and it was filled at Kanpur(U.P). Against place, Kanpur is specifically mentioned below the proposal form. On Ex.OP2 i.e Illustration Form again in it place is mentioned as Kanpur. So policy was obtained by the father of the complainant in his name at Kanpur. In para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that complainant's father again believing in opposite party No.2 issued three post-dated account payee's cheques out of his bank account No.2863000100416377 with Punjab National Bank, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh of Rs.50,000/- each. So the payment of the premium amount through cheques was also made at Kanpur. The bank account of father of the complainant was also at Kanpur. This fact is also evident from copy of pass book Ex.CA-2. The complainant has himself produced copy of letter Ex.CA1/A vide which the policy documents were sent to the complainant. On this letter the address of the complainant is mentioned as that of Phagwara, District Kapurthala. In the title of the complaint, the complainant has also mentioned his address of Phagwara, District Kapurthala. So, no part of cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Counsel for the complainant contended that opposite party No.1 has a branch office at Jalandhar i.e opposite party No.2 and as such this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Now it is well established that simply branch office of the company is not sufficient to entitle the complainant to file the consumer complaint at that place. It is necessary that where any branch office of the company is situated some part of cause of action should have also arisen there and only then the complainant can file a consumer complaint at such a place. Simply on the ground that branch office of the insurance company is situated at Jalandhar, the present consumer complaint can not be filed here as no part of cause of action has arisen to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Consequently, the present complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant after making necessary endorsement on it for presentation before the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter in dispute. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

03.07.2015 Member Member President