Haryana

Karnal

CC/278/2018

Smt. Renu Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Vohra

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.278 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 15.10.2018

                                                         Date of decision:30.10.2018

 

Smt. Renu Devi, aged about 35 years, having Adhar no.266292835191 nominee, widow of late Shri Satish Kumar resident of house no.516, Simla Gujran, Bapoli, Simla Gujra (51), Sub tehsil Samalkha District Panipat, Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                                  …….Complainant

                                        Versus

1. M/s Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered office at 11^th floor, Vishwaroop I.T. Park, plot no.34, 35 & 38 Sector 30-A, of IIP, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 through its M.D. & C.E.O.

2.   Smt. Reena Devi, being Agent of M/s Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited and wife of Shri Des Raj, resident of village and post office Sambhli, Tehsil Nissing District Karnal.

 

                                                                ……opposite parties.

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr.Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for complainant.

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

                   The above noted complaint is fixed for today for consideration at the stage of admission. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of complainant (life assured) had purchased SUD Life Accidental death and Total & Permanent Disability benefit Rider-Traditional policy under Life Aayushmaan (base policy) through OP no.2 who is the authorized agent of OP no.1. The life assured had paid a sum of Rs.42,663/- on 31.3.2016 for basic sum assured under base plan of Rs.6,50,000/- and the premium payment term was Rs.20 years and expiry/maturity date will 31.3.2036. The complainant was nominee in the said policy. The life assured had expired un-timely on 22.04.2016 due to the fact that the life assured fell down from the roof of the house and died due to receiving head injury. Complainant informed the OPs regarding death of her husband to the OPs and demanded death claim of life assured. The complainant has supplied all the documents as demanded by the OP no.2 and OP no.2 forwarded the death claim of life assured to the OP no.1 for making payment to the complainant. Complainant requested the OPs several times to release the death claim but OPs failed to settle the death claim of life assured. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 6.9.2018 in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

3.             On perusal of the complaint, it clearly transpired that the complainant had purchased the policy of OP no.1. The OP no.1 has no office at Karnal Jurisdiction.

Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act, provides jurisdiction to the District Forum, which reads as under:

“Jurisdiction of the District Forum- (1) xxxxxx..

(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 institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

        (b)   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, provides 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

        (c)  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

On reading of the above, it is clear that the District Forum within the local limits of whose, the cause of action either wholly or in part, has arisen, shall have jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint

4.             In view of the foregoing circumstances, this Forum at Karnal has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, complainant shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction in the matter. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:30.10.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member