DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 229/19

Smt. Anu Jain

E-102, Narwana Apartments

Patparganj

New Delhi – 110 092                                                                 ….Complainant

                                                                Vs.         

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.

(27 BKC, C 27, G Block

Bandra Kurla Complex

Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

Also at:

H-78, 7^th Floor, Himalaya House

23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi – 110 001                                                                      …Opponent

Date of Institution: 22.07.2019

Date of Order: 02.08.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Anu Jain against Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

            The facts in brief are that complainant Ms. Anu Jain insured his Honda Jazz car no. DL09CAL6459 with M/s. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Limited (OP) who issued policy no. 1039038400 dated 15.09.2018.  The said car met with an accident on 18.03.2019.  The complainant approached Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Limited (OP) through M/s. Prime Honda, Patparganj, their authorized service station, for cashless claim settlement.  After survey of the car on 22 or 23 March by the representative of OP, she was verbally told on 25.03.2019 that her claim has been rejected as she had taken undue benefit of No Claim Bonus while purchasing the policy inspite of having made a claim in the previous year.

The complainant wrote a letter of dated 25.03.2019 explaining the circumstances and requested for settlement of the claim.  She got an email replied on 09.04.2019 with a letter of dated 26.03.2019 repudiating the claim on the ground of suppression of material facts.  She has given the details of emails exchanged between the complainant and OP from 28.05.2019 till 11.07.2019 which do not require any details.  Thus, she has stated that OP be directed to accept her claim and release the funds as per survey alongwith damages, compensation of minimum 100% of the claim and legal fee.    

Heard on admission.

            At the outset, it is stated that complainant did not appear and she has authorised Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, her husband, to appear and argue.  During the course of admission hearing, question of jurisdiction cropped up.  On the point of jurisdiction, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that this forum was having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the OP was having their branch office within the jurisdiction of this forum.  He has vehemently argued that case of the complainant was covered under Section 11(2)(d) of the Act.  For bringing her complaint under this provision, he has stressed on the point that complainant have written to OP to furnish the address of their branch office within the jurisdiction of this forum. 

            To appreciate his arguments, it would not be out of place to have a look to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.  The same is extracted hereunder:-

   Section 11  Jurisdiction of the District Forum

1. -
2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
   1.  -, or
   2. any 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, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
   3. -

A bare reading of this provision show that any of the OPs where there are more than one must carry on business or have a branch office and in such a case, permission of the district forum was given, or the OPs who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office acquiesce in such institution. 

In the present case, if a look is made to the Memo of Parties, it is noticed that OP who has been impleaded as a party have an address of Mumbai as well as Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.  There is only one OP.  When there is only one OP, the provision of Section 11(2)(b) was not attracted to the facts of the case.

Not only that, if the documents such as policy certificate as well as repudiation letter  are perused, it is noticed that policy have been issued by OP from their office based at Himalaya House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.  The repudiation letter of dated 26.03.2019 have been issued from their Mumbai office.  When the policy have been issued from their Kasturba Gandhi Marg office and repudiation letter have also been issued from their Mumbai office, this forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The plea taken on behalf of the complainant that she made a request for furnishing the address of their branch office within the jurisdiction of this forum does not hold good as this forum cannot exercise its power for collection of evidence.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint cannot be admitted and it stands rejected.  There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                               (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                                    President