Delhi

West Delhi

CC/23/213

Ashutosh Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No.213/2023

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

S/O G.C. SRIVASTAVA

R/O HOUSE NO. 282, STREET NO. 6

NEAR COMMUNITY CENTRE, RANHOLA,

NANGLOI, NEW DELHI 110041                                                             ... COMPLAINANT

                                                                       VERSUS

 

HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

BEARING THE REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS AS :

LODHA EXCELUS, 13^TH FLOOR,

APPOLLO MILLS COMPOUND,

N.FM. JOSHI MARG, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI 400011                    …OPPOSITE PARTY

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

15.05.2023 28.08.2023 29.08.2023

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

 

 

ORDER

 

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against OP submitting that  he had availed of HDFC Life Pro Growth Plus Plan vide Policy Number 17747259 in July, 2015 for sum assured 3 lakh on payment of premium of Rs. 30,000/- made to OP with policy term 15 years. Complainant total fund value prior to Covid Outbreak in January, 2022 was Rs. 1,65,994 which came down drastically to Rs. 1,22,000/- by 21.03.2020 in just 60 days. OP credited two amounts of Rs. 1,16,231.75/- and Rs. 357.24/- totalling to Rs. 1,16,589/- into complainant’s Bank Account on 26.02.2021. Whereas as per the complainant maturity amount of the said Plan should be Rs. 2,30,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18 % per annum in 2 years, 7 months and 1 week till 14.05.2023  which should come to Rs. 3,54,640/- with but since the OP has already paid Rs 1,16,589/- out of the said  sum of Rs. 3,54,640/-, complaint has been filed for remaining balance amount of Rs. 2,38,051/- .

 

2. At the preliminary stage of arguments on admission, on perusal of the complete case file it was observed that the policy has been issued by OP to the complainant at his Chandigarh address and all correspondence has been sent by OP to the complainant at this address and nowhere in the entire case file is there any correspondence or cause of action having arisen at Ranhola, Nangloi which is mentioned in the memo of party. Therefore, complainant was directed to satisfy the Bench on the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction in hearing held on 17.07.2023. Complainant on the next date of hearing that is 28.08.2023 place on record rent agreement of the said address which is photocopy but bearing the original signature of the complainant and thought the tenancy commencement date is written as 01.08.2023 the attestation by notary public is dated 27.08.2023 and even otherwise the complaint pertains to period of 2021 on which date the address for which period this Rent Agreement is not relevant. Clearly the rent agreement is of August, 2023 and therefore shall not be treated for the purpose of complaint to be admitted for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction by this commission. The Complaint in therefore dismissed in limine under section 34 (2) of CPA 2019 for lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

3. Let a copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

 

4. File be consigned to record room.

 

5. Announced on 29.08.2023. 

 

 

Richa Jindal                                                 Anil Kumar Koushal                     Sonica Mehrotra

(Member)                                                       (Member)                                     (President)