Delhi

New Delhi

CC/332/2017

Trilok Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aviva Life Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC./332/2017                                Dated:

 

In the matter of:

Tirlok Chand

S/o Lt. Sh. Makhan lal

R/o B- 118 MIG Flat,

Keshav Puram,

New Delhi-110035                               ……..COMPLAINANT

 

    

VERSUS

 

AVIVA Life Insurance Company Limited

Prakash Deep Building,Second Floor

7, Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi.

 

ALSO AT

 

AVIVA Life Insurance Company Limited

Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp.

Golf phase – V ,Sector 43,

Gurgaon.                                   ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA - MEMBER

              The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a           “Life Insurance policy” and paid yearly / half yearly premium to the OP against the alleged Policy and in this way he paid total sum of Rs. 4,65,000/- to the OP Insurance Co. against the Policy issued. It is alleged by the complainant due to change in terms and condition of the policy he requested to the OP Insurance Co. to cancel the policy and refund the premium amount paid by him. It is  further alleged by the complainant that despite several phone calls and personal visit, nothing has been done by the OP insurance Co to refund the premium amount. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the  complainant that the OP has its office at Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The Policy in original filed by the complainant alongwith his complaint shows that the policy was issued from the Gurgaon office of the OP Co. , the premium receipts were also issued from the Gurgaon office of the OP Co. , the correspondence if any was also made to the Gurgaon office of the OP Co. The original Policy filed along with the complaint clearly shows that the policy was not taken from the office of the OP falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

              We are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Sonic Surgical where in the following order where passed. In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders:-

“Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79]

 

In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

Therefore, for want of jurisdiction, we direct the complaint to be returned to the complainant for filing it before appropriate and competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant along with documents filed along with the court fee certificate be returned to the complainant against receipt after obtaining a copy of the same and then file be consigned to the record room.

 

From the foregoing facts it is clear that neither the cause of action nor the policy in question was issued from place located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

We are, therefore, of the view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement (Supra). The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint  be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed off in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room. 

Pronounced in open Forum on ______________________

 

                          (S K SARVARIA)

                            PRESIDENT

 

                                         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                  (H M VYAS)

                                                   MEMBER                                               MEMBER