BEOFRE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 10 of 2016
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 12.01.2016
DATE OF ORDER: - 21.06.2016
Smt. Chanderkala wife of Dalbir Singh, resident of village Kheri Sanwal, PO Dhani Phogat, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Supdt. Of Post Office, Deptt. of Posts, Bhiwani.
- DG/ADG, APS, PLI Cell C/O 56 APO, PIN 908716.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Anand Singh Dabas, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, SDI for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that her son had purchased 2 PLI bearing No. APS-941818-L and APS-858222-L for a sum of Rs.200000/- each from opposite party and she was nominated as nominee in the above said both policy. The complainant alleged that life assured expired on 21.01.2013 in a road side accident. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the Ops for settlement of claim but despite several visits they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that she had also sent several letters to the Ops for making payment of the insured amount but of no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such she had to file the present complaint for seeking claim amount alongwith compensation.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that neither the Ops having its office at Bhiwani nor it was working for gain at Bhiwani, nor any part of cause of action arose at Bhiwani. It is submitted that the complainant has not exhausted all the departmental channels available to him. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure A1 to Annexure A11 and documents A to G alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the representative for Ops placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. Both the parties stated that they have filed the relevant documents on the file and no other document is to be filed on behalf of them. Therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative for the Ops.
6 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that prior to this complaint the complainant had filed a case before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhiwani. Vide order dated 04.06.2015 Annexure A, Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhiwani has disposed of the application of the complainant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction leaving the complainant to seek remedy before the appropriate authority.
7. As per the contention of the complainant, Naseeb Singh (now deceased) son of the complainant died in a road accident on 21.01.2013 in the area of Hansi, District Hisar. An F.I.R. No. 72 dated 21.01.2013 has been registered with the concerned police station regarding the accident. The counsel for the complainant contended that the son of the complainant purchased 2 postal life insurance policies for the sum assured Rs. 2 lakh each when he was posted at Bangalore and the amount of the monthly premium was to be paid from his salary by Pay Account Office, ASC (South) Bangalore, under the salary scheme.
8. The Authorized Representative for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He contested the claim of the complainant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and secondly on the ground that no amount of insurance policy is payable to the complainant because the complainant/Pay and Account Officer of ASC, Bangalore failed to pay the due premiums on due dates, even within the period of grace, hence the policies in question as per Rule 56 (1) have become void. Therefore as per the terms and conditions of the policy the sum assured is not payable to the complainant as the policy stands lapsed. The Authorized Representative of the Ops referred the following judgments:-
I Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Versus Anupama and others 2004 (1) 26 of National Commission, New Delhi.
II Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Lalitaben and another 2004 (1) 600 of Gujarat State Commission, Ahmedabad.
III Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus D.C. Joshi 2004 (2) 29 of Uttaranchal State Commission, Dheradun.
9. Admittedly, the policy in question was taken by the son of the complainant at Bangalore and the premium of the said policy was to be deducted by Pay Account Office, ASC, (South) Bangalore from the salary of the deceased Naseeb Singh. Naseeb Singh the son of the complainant died in road accident on 21.01.2013 in the area of Hansi, District Hisar. Under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act “no part of cause of action has arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum”. Hence this District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction without going into the merits of the case. The complainant shall be at liberty to take legal recourse before the competent authority/court of law, if so advised. The complainant can take the shelter of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(3) SCC page 583 on the point of limitation. Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 21.06.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
