Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Mumbai(Suburban)

CC/46/2024

MR RAM KUMAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - 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/46/2024
( Date of Filing : 01 Apr 2024 )
 
1. MR RAM KUMAR SINGH
2/58 MADNAPUR USURU RAEBARELI UTTAR PRADESH 229202
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
UNIT NO 801 & 802 TOWER C EMBASSY 247 PARK LBS MARG VIKHROLI (W)MUMBAI 400083
2. NORTH INDIA FINSERVE PRIVATE LIMITED
509 5TH FLOOR SURYA KIRAN BUILDING 19 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG DELHI 110001
............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 Uttar Pradesh 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.