Delhi

New Delhi

CC/503/2011

Ram Nandan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER FISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.503/2011

 

Ram Nandan,

S/o  Sh.Rajender Prasad,

R/o RZ-C-168, M.V. Music Centre,

Dahsrath Puri,  New Delhi-45.

                                             …..Complainant

Vs.

 

  1.         Bajaj Allianz,

Head Office,

GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada,

Pune-411006.

 

  1.          Bajaj Allianz,

Delhi  Office :

C-32, 1st   2nd Floor,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-02.

 

  1.         Golden Multi Services Club Ltd.,

17A/53, WEA, Karol Bagh, IInd Floor,

Gurudwara Road, New Delhi-05.

    ….Opposite Parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that  the complainant purchased a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy No.0G-05-2401-9960-00000040 dt. 15.3.2005 for himself and his wife namely Anita Devi for a sum insured of Rs.3,00,000/- for a period of 15.3.2005 to 14.3.2008 from OP-3 authorized dealer of OP-1 & 2.  On 30.4.2006, the wife of complainant, Anita Devi  died under unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home  and a case was registered by the local police on behalf of Anita Devi(now deceased)  parents on 1.5.2006 and  the complainant was arrested and he was sent to judicial custody on 2.5.2006 in case FIR No.418/2006 u/s 302/34 IPC PS Dabri.  As the complainant was innocent, hence, he was acquitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dt. 28.7.2010  and was released from custody on 30.7.2010.  After releasing from the custody, the complainant immediately approached the OP and claim was filed along with all the relevant papers like post mortem report, death certificate, cremation certificate, FIR custody certificate etc.  The complainant received communications from the OPs therein stating that claim could not be passed as the information relating to death of policy holder i.e. Anita Devi was not intimated within a period of one month from the date of death.  The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 1.2.2011 to the OP clarifying the delay but OPs struck up on his decision of repudiation, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP filed its written statement in which it denied any deficiency in services on its part. It is further stated by the OP that this Forum does not have Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint..

3.     Both the parties have  filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex court 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 relevant order is as follows:

“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.

 

6.     Perusal of the file shows that the policy in question was issued by OP-3 having its office at Kolkatta and the claim was repudiated by Pune  Branch of the OP Insurance Co. Hence, neither the office of the OP nor the cause of action i.e. repudiation of claim arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

7.     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 judgements cited above.

8.     The complaint is, therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexures against receipt.  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 on27/01/2020.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                                         (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                                                      MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.