DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.173 of 13-04-2010 Decided on 03-09-2010 1. Chet Ram S/o Sh.Mela Ram S/o Sh.Khiwa Ram, resident of village Bhatwala, Post Office Tolasar, Tehsil Sardarshehar, Distt. Churu (Rajsthan). 2. Sona Devi W/o Mela Ram S/o Sh.Khiwa Ram. 3. Amit Kumar S/o Sh.Mela Ram S/o Sh.Khiwa Ram. 4. Bhanwar Lal S/o Sh.Mela Ram S/o Sh.Khiwa Ram. 5. Rameti D/o Sh.Mela Ram S/o Sh.Khiwa Ram, residents of village, Bhatwala, Post Office Tolasar, Tehsil Sardarshehar, Distt. Churu (Rajsthan) through their Power of Attorney Chet Ram S/o Sh. Mela Ram S/o Sh.Khiwa Ram, resident of village Bhatwala, Post Office Tolasar, Tehsil Sardarshehar, Distt. Churu (Rajsthan). .......Complainants Versus 1. Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd., Commercial Vehicles Division, 6th Floor, SCO 120, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory. 2. Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd., Commercial Vehicles Division, having their office at Bathinda, through Bhupinder Rana, # 1350-0, Thakur Colony, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. 3. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance (Kotak Life Insurance) having their office at 3 1350 Tkakur Colony, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda, through its Manager. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Lachhman Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party Nos.1&2. Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No.3. ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:- 1. This complaint has been filed by the complainants owner of many buses including one Tata Bus 1512 TC 59 bearing Engine No.IOCB2738135, chassis No.412081, CQZ 106375. The said vehicle was financed and insured from the opposite parties under insurance cover issued by the opposite parties under the scheme “Kotak Transport Surkasha Jindgi Bhar Ki Khushiyan” vide certificate of cover bearing certificate No.09621 loan agreement No.1811547 which covers the life of the owner/driver. This complaint has been filed by the legal heirs of Mela Ram who expired on 28.07.2009 and the said vehicle was in the name of Mela Ram. The complainant No.1 intimated the opposite parties regarding the death of his father Mela Ram and furnished detail information of policy of the said bus and requested them to release the amount of policy to the tune of Rs.10 lacs. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter 10.03.2010 with the observation that at the time of taking the policy, the said Mela Ram choosed to take a loan insurance of Rs.1 lac only and accordingly one time premium amount of Rs.9686/- was charged from him. 2. The opposite parties flied an application for dismissal of complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Instead of filing the reply to this complaint, in para No.2 of this application, all the complainants and deceased belong to village Bhatwala, District Churu (Rajsthan) and loan was taken by the complainant from opposite party No.1 having its branch office at Ludhiana and loan agreement was also executed at Ludhiana and the insurance cover was also issued from Ludhiana as the insurance was part of the financial deal and as such no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda, if any it has arisen at Ludhiana. Reply to this application has been filed by the complainant. 3. Arguments heard on the application. Record placed on file by the complainant has been perused. 4. This Forum has observed that no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda branch office. Mere, branch office does not confir territorial jurisdiction to file the present complaint. The support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Sonic Surgical Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 (1) CLT 252 wherein, it is held:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2)(b) (as amended in the year 2003) – Territorial jurisdiction – Expression 'branch office' – Held that the expression 'branch officer' in amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action as arisen.” 5. In the complaint in hand, no such document is placed on file to show that any cause of action wholly and partly has arisen at Bathinda branch office. Neither insurance cover has been purchased from Bathinda nor any cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. Hence, this application is accepted and in view of this application, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the Forum of competent territorial jurisdiction. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 03.09.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
