By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that he has taken insurance policy from 1st respondent and it was valid till 30/11/04. His mother was also included in the policy. She was suffering from diabetes and other diseases and died on 12/10/04 at Lourdu hospital, Ernakulam. This complaint is filed by alleging deficiency in service of respondents against dishonour of claim of complainant.
2. The 1st respondent appeared and filed their version. The complainant is examined and documents were marked from both sides. But it can be seen that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
3. The policy was availed from 1st respondent situated at Angamaly in Ernakulam district. The 2nd respondent is also in Ernakulam. There is no cause of action at all within the limits of this Forum. It is stated in the complaint that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum because the complainant is residing at Chalakudy in Thrissur. This view of complainant is not at all correct. According to Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complaintt shall be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party actually and voluntarily residing or personally works for gain etc. The place of residence of complainant is not covered by Consumer Protection Act. So the complainant has no locus tandi to file this complaint before this Forum.
4. The complaint can file where the cause of action wholly or in partly arises. But there is not at all any cause of action before this Forum. The branch office means the branch where the cause of action has arisen. It does not mean that complaint against the insurer could have been filed anywhere in India where ever it had a branch office. It is held by our Hon’ble National Commission and reported in 2010 (1) CTJ page 3 that the expression branch office means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. In the circumstances the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and should be returned to file before the proper Forum.
5. It is true that the question of jurisdiction should be decided at the threshold. But in Rajkumar Vs. M/s M G Motors our Hon’ble National Commission held and reported in 2012 (3) CPR NC 352 that the question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at execution stage.
6. In the result the complaint is returned to file before the proper Forum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of March 2013.
