Delhi

New Delhi

CC/524/2017

Mohinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC./524/2017                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

MOHINDER PAL SINGH

E- 141, Lajpat Nagar1

New Delhi – 110024                                          ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO INDIA LTD

2^ND Floor, Prakash Deep Bldg.

7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001

ALSO AT

The Incharge

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO INDIA LTD

Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opposite DLF Gold Course

DLF Phase V , Sector 43, Gurgaon 122003              OPPOSITE PARTIES

NIPUR CHANDNA - MEMBER

                  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant has taken a policy No. ALP 1906759, with product name Life Bond Plus having Plan Code ALP, UIN 122L046V01 on 10.03.2008 and paid a single premium of Rs. 25,000/-  on an assurance given by the OP that he will get the high assured return after the policy is matured i.e after 5 years of the deposit. It is alleged by the complainant that the alleged policy stand matured on 10.03.2013, the OP vide its letter dt. 19.12.2014 inform the complainant that the maturity amount is Rs.12,924. It is alleged by the complainant that he failed to understand as to how the Sum of Rs. 25,000/- invested in the year 2008 become only Rs. 12,924 /- and hence he visited the office of the OP and request to look into the matter, but nothing has been done by the OP and as such complainant sent legal notice Dt. 21.03.2017 thereby calling upon the OP to refund the amount deposited along with interest. OP neither refunded the money nor reply to the legal notice.  Hence  this  complaint. 

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the counsel for complainant that the OP has its office at Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The copy of the policy in question filed by the complainant along with his complaint shows that the policy was issued from the Gurgaon office of the OP CO., the letter and the communication taken place between the complainant and the OP Insurance Co. is also from the Gurgaon Office of the OP Company. The copy of the Policy filed along with the complaint clearly shows that the policy was not issued 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.

Before adverting to the disposal of this case, it is expedient to quote the relevant provision in their respect and the same is as follows :-

 

Section 11- Jurisdiciton of the District Forum –

1.Subject to the other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints were value of goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs) .

2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limit 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 or voluntarily resides or ( carries on business or has a branch office or ) personally work 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 the business or has a branch office), or personally work for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not resides or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as case may be , acquiesce in such institution, or

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

              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 was taken 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 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 on12.02.2018

 

          (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                    PRESIDENT

 

                   (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                  (H M VYAS)

                         MEMBER                                               MEMBER