Delhi

New Delhi

CC/167/2019

MR. AJIT KUMAR ARYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.167/2019                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Ajit Kumar Arya,

S/o late Sh. Purushottam Arya,

R/o Poorvi Kauria, Loha Mandi, Shahganj,

P.O. Shahganj District Janupur, UP,

Pin-233101.

                          

                                                                  ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. Bajaj Allianz General  Insurance Co.,

Dr. Gopaldas Bhawan, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place, New Delhi.

Through its Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer.

 

2. Surya Roshni Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Padma Tower-I,

Rajendra Place,

New Delhi-8.

Represented through Director.

 

3. Bajaj Allianz General  Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road,

Terawada, Pune-411006.

 

4. Sh. Surendra Pal Singh,

Insurance Okbudsman, Office of  Insurance Building,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-02

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP. The gist of the complaint is  that  the  complainant was the policy holder of the OP Insurance Co. That on  11.9.2018, the complainant felt chest discomfort and as such admitted in an emergency at Pattaya Memorial Hospital, Pattaya and was discharged on 19.9.2018. The intimation of the admission was given to the OP vide e-mail dt. 12.9.2018.  Despite continuous persuasion and follow-up the OP Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its e-mails dt. 18.9.18, 19.9.18, 8.10.18, 11.10.18 and finally vide letter dt. 19.12.2018.  The complainant sent a legal notice to re-consider his claim but all in vain. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP-1 has its office at Connaught Place, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

3.     The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued from West Delhi, Office of the OP Co.  The claim of the complainant was finally repudiated by the office of the OP situated at Aruna Asaf Ali, Delhi-54.  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action if any arose against the office situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the OPs nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

4.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

5.     The complainant has placed on record, the copy of policy documents which clearly shows that the policy was issued from  the West Delhi office of the OP Co.  So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over West Delhi would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  

6.     In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above,  we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  free of

cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 08/08/2019.

 

               (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                        PRESIDENT

                      (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                               MEMBER                                                                MEMBER