DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 83 of 19-02-2010

Decided on : 07-10-2010

Mrs. Veena Rani Wd/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Arora aged 42 years R/o Near Pingal Wada, Budhlada, District Mansa now R/o

Bhagat Singh Market, New New Bus Stand, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Registered Office 9^th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Behind Everard Nagar, Sion (E), Mumbai 400 022, India, through its Manging Director/Associate Vice President, Claims Department.

2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Branch Ist Floor, Plot No. 17/339, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager

3. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, Branch Office, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Lachman Kumar, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for the

opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging therein that Sh. Girdhari Lal Arora, husband of the complainant purchased a life Insurance policy of the opposite parties for Rs. 1,50,000/-. He has to pay Rs. 75,00/- P.A. as premium and his life would be insured for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the amount of premium would be invested by the opposite parties in different plans and the growth/benefit thereof would be distributed amongst the policy holder/s and their expected annual return is about 30-35% and the policy holder/s can withdraw the amount/surrender the policy after three years and NAV was to be paid by the opposite parties on surrender of the policy. The first installment was paid by the insured on 18-03-2008, 2^nd installment was paid on 31-10-2008 and the next installment was payable in the month of March/April, 2009. The insured Girdhari Lal died on 13-03-2009. The complainant has filed the claim with the opposite parties and they repudiated the claim on the following grounds :

   i) The life insured was documented to be a patient of Alcoholic liver disease and the investigation report showed the life insured to be a case of chronic liver disease.

   ii) Had Malaena (blood in stools) in 2004, underwent esophageal varical ligation in April and May, 2008.

   iii) Diagnosed of Diabetes since 3 years.

   iv) Was a known case of Bladder stone, operated for same 15 years back.

   Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint.

2. The written reply has been filed by the opposite parties and the evidence of the parties has also been closed. When the case was fixed for arguments, an application was moved by the opposite parties for dismissal of complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction. The reply of application has been filed by the complainant. The complainant has submitted that present application is not maintainable and the objection regarding jurisdiction of this Forum can be decided at the time of final arguments of the main complaint

3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that complainant received repudiation letter at Mansa, proposal form was submitted at Mansa and the policy was taken at Sirsa and as such, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Bathinda. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also placed reliance on law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgement of 2010 wherein it has been held that Branch office means that Branch office where the cause of action arisen. As per this judgement this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that once the notices are issued to the opposite parties, the complaint cannot be dismissed at the very preliminary stage without going through the pleadings of both the parties. In support of his argument, he has referred definition of Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under :-

   “(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -

   (a) 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, or..........”

   The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings and to retain the lawful claim of the complainant. He further submitted that since the opposite parties have their respective offices at Bathinda, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record of the case.

5. To prove his case, the complainant has relied on Ex. R-4 which is reproduced hereunder :-

   “....Please send your response to Central Processing Centre at Mumbai or your nearest branch of Kotak Life Insurance at the earliest will be appreciated & help us to expedite the claim process.”

   The learned counsel for the complainant urged before this Forum that there is no branch office of Kotak Machindra at Mansa where the complainant is residing, so the nearest branch of Kotak Mahindra is at Bathinda.

6. A perusal of record reveals that complainant has purchased the policy from Sirsa, he deposited the proposal form Ex. C-7 at Sirsa and paid the premium vide Ex. C-6 on 20-03-2008 at Mansa. The claim repudiation letter Ex. C-2 was received at Mansa. A policy deposit receipt Ex. C-3 was also issued from Mansa. Thus, a perusal of documents placed on file show that no part of cause of action has arisen at Bathinda branch office of the opposite parties. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 2010(1) CLT 252 titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited wherein it has been held that :-

   “(i) Consumer Protection act, 1986, Section 17(2) – Territorial jurisdiction – Insurance claim – Cause of action – The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala – The Insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala – Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction – State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint – Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission.

   (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17(2)(b) (as amended in the year 2003) – Territorial jurisdiction – Expression 'branch office ' Held that the expression 'branch office' in amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.”

7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the of the considered view that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Accordingly merits of the case are not being touched. Thus, the application of the opposite parties is hereby accepted and the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. It is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Forum/authority to get his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

07-10-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member

(Amarjeet Paul) Member