SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for realization of policy amount, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is a policy holder under the opp.party Pravasi Bharathiya Bhima Yojana, 2003. The period of coverage was two years from 21.2.2005 till 20.2.2007. The policy is intended for the Pravasi Indians. The complainant was working as a mason in Dubai. While so the complainant met with an accident on 3.7.05 and he sustained serious injuries to his left hand and a sum more than Rs.2,00,000/- was spent for his surgery and treatment.. The complainant on returning to India preferred a claim for the amount. But the claim was repudiated raising untenable reasons. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The opp.party who issued the insurance policy is functioning at Mumbai. The entire transaction in the complaint has taken place between the complainant and the opp.party at Mumbai which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore the complaint ought to have been filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum having jurisdiction. The definition complaint, complainant, consumer dispute, service as defined in section 2[1] of the Consumer Protection Act do not cover the claim madeout in the complaint. It is admitted that a Pravasy Bharathiya Bima Yognana, 2003 policy was issued to the complainant for a period commencing from 21.2.2005 to 20.2.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- The insurance coverage given under the policy was subject to the terms and conditions, The policy holder is eligible for medical expenses to a maximum of Rs.50,000/- . The complainant had submitted a claim form before the opp.party on 27.10.2005 in connection with the multiple fractures sustained to him in an accident which occurred on 2.6.2005. The medical certificate issued by the Department of Health and Medical Services, Govt. of Dubai and a certificate from Dr. Ashokan , Dist. Hospital, Kollam were produced The opp.party on scrutiny of the claim found that the accident was occurred on 2.6.05 and the present claim preferred by the complainant for his subsequent treatment after a period of more than 45 days from the original date of his last consultation for the injuries sustained to him. As per para 2 [VII] of the schedule of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to benefit 2[a] medical [hospitalization] expenses for the illness that relapse after 45 days from the date of last consultation, which is outside the scope of illness defined in the policy. The claim was repudiated by the opp.party in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 3. Reliefs and costs. Points; As a matter of fact the accident and subsequent treatment are not disputed. The main contention of the opp.party is that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint. Admittedly the policy Pravasi Bharathiya Bhima Yojana, 2003..was taken from the Mumbai office of the opp.party. The accident to the complainant was also occurred beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum at Dubai where he was working as Maison. Therefore the learned counsel for the opp.party would argue that no part of cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant would argue that there is a branch office of opp.party at Kollam which is within the jurisdiction of this forum and as such this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. That argument cannot accepted . It has been held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2009 [4] KLT SN 56 [C No.50] SC that the expression branch office in amended Sec. 17 [2] would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen. Admittedly no transaction has not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore merely because a branch office is there within the jurisdiction of this Forum it will not confer territorial jurisdiction to this Forum to entertain this complaint. Therefore we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Point found accordingly. Point 2 and 3 In the light of our finding on point No.1 we shall not be justified in adjudicating this point. In the result the complaint is returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Forum within a period of one month. No costs. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. . | 
