Karnataka

Kolar

CC/64/2017

Sri.Venkatesh.R, S/o. late Ramakrishnappa, Aged About 28 Years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Life Insurance, Branch Office, The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Kumar K.

30 Nov 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 22/09/2017

Date of Order: 30/11/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.64 OF 2017

Sri. Venkatesh R,

S/o. late. Ramakrishnappa,

Aged About 28 Years,

R/at: No.11, Gollahalli Village,

Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk-563137.                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Sunil Kumar.K, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) Kotak Life Insurance, Branch Office,

The Manager, Near Corporation Bank,

Doddapet, Kolar-563101.

 

And Also one of Branch Office at

Kotak Life Insurance,

The Manager, #59, Sree Complex,

BHSC, T Block, Banashankari

3^rd Stage, Bangalore-560 085.

(Exparte)

 

2) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

Branch Office, The Manager, #59,

Sree Complex, BHSC, T Block,

Banashankari 3^rd Stage,

Bangalore-560085.

(Exparte)

                                                                          …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming issuance of directions to the Ops to rectify the mistake made by the OP No.1 in the insurance cover plan dated: 03.05.2016 i.e., “Policy Holder as nominee and Nominee as Policy Holder”, to policy holder name as “Ramakrishnappa and nominee as “Venkatesh” the present complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,72,299/- towards foreclosure amount which is completely loan agreement No.TFE-4342900 and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages towards mental and physical agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and such other reliefs as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is the contention of the complainant that, his father late Sri. Ramakrishnappa had purchased the tractor vehicle –MASSEY FERGUSON 5245 PD TR (TAFE MF 5245 PD DC) from the OP bearing loan agreement No.TFE-4342900 dated: 03.05.2016 for a sum of Rs.4,81,125/-.  As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement his father agreed to pay 16 quarterly installments each installment is of Rs.44,023/-.  The said deceased Ramakrishnappa, the father of the complainant extended life insurance cover plan dated: 03.05.2016 for a sum of Rs.7,04,368/- i.e., loan amount under the Kotak Complete Cover Group Certificate No.CC00014Q747900, Load ID: TFE4342900 entered between the OP No.1.  And as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said plan if at all the death of the borrower of the loan occurred the outstanding principal loan amount is to be disbursed by OP No.2 directly.  Thus the father of the complainant had purchased Tractor MASSEY FERGUSON 5245 PD TR having registration No. KA-08 T-7450 by making the complainant has a nominee for the said insurance.  The father of the complainant was died on 02.03.2017.  After his death surprisingly the complainant noticed in the column of nominee place his father name was there.  It was due to the error of the insurer.  The father of the complainant had paid regular quarterly installments to the OP No.1 as per the loan agreement.  After his father’s death several approaches were made by the complainant to the Ops office, but it was of no use.  Hence he got issued legal notice dated: 10.01.2017 though his advocate and the same was duly served on the Ops, but no reply from the Ops side.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet on 20.11.2017 Ops were placed exparte.  And on the same day the learned counsel appearing for the complainant had filed a Memo praying for deletion of Branch Office address of the OP No.1.

 

04.   The very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and Exhibit-P.1 to Exhibit-P.10 documents are came to marked on his behalf. 

 

05.   Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for complainant.  

 

06.   Therefore the only point that does arise for our consideration is:-

“Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?”

 

07.   Our findings on the above said point is in the Negative for the following:-

REASONS

08.   At the outset it is relevant to state here that, without going to the merits of the case we state here that, as per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 20.11.2017, the counsel for complainant has submitted a Memo praying for deletion of branch office address shown in the cause-title of this complaint of OP No.1.  Order on this Memo has not passed on the said day and still it is pending.  Therefore we proceed to peruse the said Memo and according to the said Memo OP No.1 is deleted, the entire nature of the pleadings will get differ and rest of the address given as in the cause-title are of Bangalore.  Therefore we lack jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant has lost his territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Therefore we have not discussed rest of the things involved in this case.  Therefore we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the present complaint stands dismissed with a direction to the complainant to approach competent Court of Law.   

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(03)  Office is directed to delete OP No.1.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017)

 

 

 

 

         LADY MEMBER                              PRESIDENT