Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban)

CC/89/2023

MITENDRA KUMAR SIKAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

EDELWEISS TOKIO LIFE INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ADV JASH DALIA

26 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MUMBAI SUBURBAN ADDITIONAL
Administrative Building, 3rd Floor, Near Chetana College
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051
 
Complaint Case No. CC/89/2023
( Date of Filing : 12 May 2023 )
 
1. MITENDRA KUMAR SIKAT
HOUSE NO 208 KUSHA BHAU TAKRE WARD NO 26 NEAR SHIV MANDIR DAL DAL SEONI RAIPUR CHATTISGARH 492007
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. EDELWEISS TOKIO LIFE INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD
TOWER 3 WING B KOHINOOR CITY KIROL ROAD KURLA WEST MUMBAI 400070
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP G. KADU PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. KANCHAN S. GANGADHARE MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Ms. Shilpa Ratnakar-Advocate i/b Shri Jash Dalia-Advocate
......for the Complainant
 
Dated : 26 Aug 2024
Final Order / Judgement

                                 Complainant is absent.  The Proxy Advocate Ms.Shilpa Ratnakar for Adv.Jash Dalia present for the Complainant with authority letter.

                        The present complaint is pending for admission since long for want of presence of the Complainant before this Commission.  Today, also the Complainant is absent.  After perusal the entire record of complaint memo, we passed the following order :-

  1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the Complainant herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party i.e, the Insurance Company.  Main allegation of the Complainant is about mis-selling as well as providing false and wrong insurance policies.
  2. It is found that though the Complainant alleged deficiency in service against the Opposite Party, he has not filed supporting documentary evidence to substantiate his allegation such as proposal form, correspondence, etc., done with the Opposite Party.  He has only submitted the policy document, etc.
  3. Further, it is pertinent to note the Complainant is residing in the State of Chhatisgarh i.e, out of Maharashtra State.  As per Section 34 (2) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 specifically for the convenience of the Complainant, the provisions has been made that the Complainant can file his consumer complaint in the Consumer Commission within the territorial jurisdiction where he or she resides.  But, the Complainant though residing out of Maharashtra State filed the present consumer complaint before this Commission.  We have directed and several opportunities have been given to the Advocate for the Complainant to keep the Complainant present before this Commission to clarify this query.  However, the Advocate for the Complainant has failed to keep the Complainant present before this Commission, for the reasons best known him.

                        We therefore do not incline to admit the present consumer complaint on above mentioned grounds in Para No.2 & 3 and same is rejected at the stage of admission itself.

                        No Order as to costs.

                        Copy of this Order be sent to Complainant free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP G. KADU]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. KANCHAN S. GANGADHARE]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.