Delhi

New Delhi

CC/65/2020

Shanti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

23 Sep 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 65/2020                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Ms. Shanti Devi

W/o Late Subhash Chander

R/o Khasra no. 161/2, Gali no. 5, Samta Vihar,

Village Mukundpur, Delhi-110084                                                                                                                                                                          ……..COMPLAINANT

Versus

The Chairman,

LIC of India Zonal Office

Jeevan Bharti, Tower-II,

124, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001

 

Branch Address:-

LIC of India

Branch Unit-011P

29-30, Anuvrat Tower, Wazirpur,

Community Centre, Delhi-110052

 

Corporate Office Address:-

LIC of India- Corporate Office

Yogakshema Building, Jeevan Bima Marg,

P.O. Box no.- 19953, Mumbai-400021……..OPPOSITE PARTY

                 

 

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OP.  The brief facts of the complaint are that Late Sh. Subhash Chander S/o Ramsumer, who had purchased a Life Insurance Policy from LIC of India vide policy no. 122487686, Jeevan Anand with Profits (with Accident Benefit), issued on 28/12/2012. Further, Late Sh. Subhash Chander met with a car accident on 12/07/2013 in which he got seriously injured and was admitted to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Metcalf Road, Delhi-54 and he was passed away on 21/07/2013.

It is further stated that complainant submitted all the relevant paper form claim settlement at the office of the OP on 18/11/2013 but till date the claim has not been settled. Ms. Shanti Devi, who is an uneducated, illiterate homely lady, has made several visits and requests at the office of the Respondent regarding the disbursement of the sum assured  of the above said LIC Policy but the complainant was not given any satisfactory response with respect to its settlement.

In spite of the accident death of the insured and submission of all the relevant papers on 18/11/2013, till date the respondent is not making any effort to resolve the issue or disburse the payment to the complainant, hence, this complaint.

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction it is argued by the complainant that the OP has its office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action or the policy in question was issued from the office of the OP at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, whereas the correspondence/communication between the complainant and OP took place from the Anuvarat Tower, Wazirpur office of the OP.  In other words neither the office of the OP nor the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

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 the documents which clearly shows that the entire cause of action pertains to Anuvarat Tower, Wazirpur office of the OP. So, the District Forum having Territorial Jurisdiction over Anuvarat Tower, Wazirpur, New 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.

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 23/09/2020.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

         PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                        (H M VYAS)

                                                          MEMBER