order dated 08/04/2009<br /> <br /> The complainant absent. <br /> <br /> It is the case of the complainant that he contacted the standard chartered bank Chennai in the month of November 2008 to invest in some plan in order to save tax and as per the advise of the former, the complainant wanted to save under medical insurance in Royal Sundaram Medical Insurance, as such he started saving and invested in two Health Plus Policies policy number being CEE 0008468000100 in his name for Rs.8561/- and policy number CEE 0008503000100 in his wife’s name for Rs.3604/-. But the next day he came to know that many of the hospitals with whom he enquired do not entertain the policies for the purpose of reimbursing the hospital expenditure issued by Royal Sundaram Medical Insurance and therefore he wanted to withdraw from the scheme and insisted the Royal Sundaram Medical Insurance company to refund the amount he has paid as he is not willing to continue with the scheme, but the opposite party namely Standard Charted Bank and Royal Sundaram Allians Insurance Company have failed to refund the amount.<br /> <br /> ..3.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - :3:-<br /> <br /> It is disclosed from the papers that both the opposite parties run their business in Chennai only and the complainant has taken the policy in Chennai and therefore, in view of the following case law this Forum cannot exercise territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.<br /> <br /> Factory installed at Ghaziabad. Insurer’s office situated outside Delhi. Complaint filed at Delhi. Commission at Delhi has got no jurisdiction. Delhi Steel Tube Industries Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1993(2) CPJ 1206 Delhi.<br /> <br /> Car purchased and delivered at Delhi and payment was also made at Delhi. Car used in Saharanpur and defects detected there. No cause of action arose there. Defects do not decide the territorial jurisdiction. District Forum, Saharanpur has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Pal Peugeot Ltd. Vs. M/s Abdul Majid 1999 (1) CPJ 417 U.P.= 1999 (1) CPC 694. Vikram Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Kapoor Engineering Works 1998 (2) CPC 667 Punjab. If a cause of action arises at a place, District Forum of that place will have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. Clause (a) & (b) of section 11 are independent in nature and are not inter-dependent. After allotment of shares, the shareholders will be entitled to receive their share money redeemed even if the company has no branch office at that place. Objection about territorial jurisdiction overruled. DLF Universal Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal Chopra 2000(1) CPC 36 Punjab. <br /> <br /> Apart from the above the complainant has failed to convince the Forum that neither O.P no.1 nor O.P.no.2 has its branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, on this ground also the complaint filed by the complainant cannot be entertained.<br /> ..4.<br /> <br /> -:4:-<br /> <br /> In view of the above discussion we have no other option except to dismiss the complaint at this stage itself. It is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Forum to seek grievances redressed. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />