IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of January, 2018
Filed on 14.02.2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.46/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. N. Manoharan 1. HDFC ERGO General
Sreemangalam Insurance Co Ltd
Ramavarma Jn 6th Floor , Leela Business Park
South Ariad Andheri Kurla Road
Avalukkunnu.P.O Andheri, Mumbai-400 059
Alappuzha
2. HDFC Bank Ltd
Ground Floor
Cavery Bhavan, D -Block
Kempegowda Road
Banglore 560 009
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant is a nominee of late Shailesh kumar manoharan. The deceased has taken a vehicle loan from the 2nd opposite party and at the time of availing the said loan the complainant has also taken a comprehensive insurance plan from the opposite parties that cover his 4 wheeler loan. The policy is valid from 10-1-13 to 09-01-18. At the time subscribing the loan and the said policy both the opposite parties have convinced the insured that in case of death of the insured the liability of the insured will put to an end. During the policy period the insured Shailesh kumar Manoharan was died due to coronary in sufficiency as a result of coronary Artery disease. As per the policy conditions the balance premium amount due in the loan account need not to be paid on the death of the insured was quite accidental and sudden. The complainant made a claim before the 1st opposite party along with all relevant documents, but there is no response from the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party insisted the complainant to remit the remaining monthly installments. So the complainant was forced to remit three monthly installments amount amounting to Rs. 36,546/-. According to the complainant since the insured was died during the policy period the complainant is not liable to remit the balance monthly installments. The complainant has sent a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party, but the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. According to the complainant the 3 installments were remitted through Bank of Baroda at Alappuzha branch and therefore this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:_
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is humbly submitted that his Hon’ble Court was not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable under Sec. 11 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986. The complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands in order to make unlawful gain to him by misusing the authority of this Hon’ble Court and causing unlawful loss to this respondent. Thus it is humbly prayed that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed our rightly. Along with the version the complainant also filed a petition for hearing the maintainability
3. The point to be considered is that whether the complaint is maintainable.
4. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a nominee of late Sylesh Kumar Manoharan who has taken a vehicle loan from the 2nd opposite party and at the time of availing the said loan the complainant has also taken a comprehensive insurance policy from the 1st opposite party. At the time of availing the said policy the opposite parties convinced that in case of death of the insured the liability of the insured will put to an end and remaining loan amount need not to be paid. During the policy period the insured died due to Coronary Artery Disease. Thereafter the complainant forwarded the claim before the 1st opposite party with relevant documents but there is no response from 1st opposite party. Complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint. Opposite party at the outset challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. According to the opposite party all transactions were taken place at Bangalore and this Forum has no territorial Jurisdiction to try and decide the case. On verifying the entire records it can be seen that loan and the policy were taken from Bangalore and the amount was also remitted at Bangalore. According to the complainant after the death of the deceased Shylesh Kumar Manoharan the 2nd opposite party insisted the complainant to pay the remaining balance. So the complainant was forced to pay 3 installments through Bank of Baroda at Alappey branch. The cause of action for the complaint has arisen with regard to the insurance policy taken. The policy was taken from Bangalore and the premium of the said policy was also been paid at Bangalore. The death of the insured was also taken place at Bangalore. Thus the cause of action has arisen at Bangalore. According to the complainant he had paid three installments through Bank of Baroda Alappuzha Branch after the death of the insured and therefore the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the case. The cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint is with regard to the policy taken at Bangalore. So the subsequent remittance of the monthly installments after the death of the insured can’t be taken into consideration. So we are of opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
