By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant’s Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.KL-52/4041 was insured with the first respondent for the period from 22.9.07 to 21.9.08. The insurance policy was issued from the third respondent. On 3.1.08 the car met with an accident near Kozhikode causing injuries to a third party and also extensive damage to the vehicle. The complainant intimated the incident to the agents of the respondents. But on 14.1.2008 the complainant received a communication from the respondents informing the forfeiture of the policy of its coverage under Section 1. The communication contained an ante-dated cheque drawn by the respondents in favour of the complainant. The complainant had to incur an expenditure of Rs.75,000/- to repair the car for its damage sustained in the accident. The act of forfeiting the policy after being informed about the accident amounts to gross deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is filed. 2. The respondents-1 and 2 challenged the maintainability as the third respondent is not in existence. So we heard the question of maintainability. 3. The maintainability of the complaint is questioned due to the non-existence of the 3rd respondent. The notice served to the 3rd respondent returned as stating, “not known at Palace Road, Thrissur”. We heard both. As per Section 11(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, - 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 and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Here first and second respondents are outside the territorial limits of this Forum and the cause of action is also out of the territorial limits of this Forum. The complaint is filed in this Forum by impleading third respondent. But third respondent is not in existence and the notice returned as “not known at Palace Road, Thrissur”. So the complaint lacks territorial jurisdiction and found not maintainable before this Forum. 4. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this Forum with liberty to file before proper Forum. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of October 2009.
......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S | | 
