Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this Common order as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them. Both of these appeals are filed by the original complainants in complaint No.CC/611/2015 and CC/614/2015, feeling aggrieved by two identical orders dated 21/09/2017, passed by the District Consumer Forum Nagpur, by which both the aforesaid complaints have been dismissed on the sole ground that as the original opposite party/respondent herein is situated at Mumbai and the said District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide both the complaints.
2. We have heard advocate Mr.Prashant Khobragade appearing for the appellants and advocate Mr.D.S.Agnihotri appearing for respondent in both the appeals. We have also perused the records and proceedings of both the appeals.
3. The learned advocate of the appellant made common submission in both the appeals that the appellants their deceased son and other family members were residing at Khaparkheda, Taluka-Saoner, District-Nagpur. The branch of the Bank of India is also situated at the same place namely Khaparkheda. The deceased had submitted proposal for taking life insurance policy through the agent namely Bank of India, branch Khaparkheda of the respondent and that the respondent issued insurance policies in the name of deceased for Rs.5,00,000/- each, the deceased had paid premium of Rs.25,000/- each yearly and that the deceased died during the period of both the policies. The learned advocate of appellants further submitted that the insurance claim was made to the respondent but the respondent repudiated the claim and therefore legal notice was issued to respondent and thereafter complaints were filed before the District Forum Nagpur.
4. The learned advocate of the appellants has invited our attention during the course of hearing on the policy documents in which the name of the corporate agent of the appellants is mentioned as Bank of India. He has also invited our attention to the proposal submitted by the deceased for the above purpose in which it is mentioned that the Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda received the premium of Rs.25,000/-. The learned advocate of the appellant further submitted that though Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda is not joined to the complaints as one of the opposite party, still it is not disputed by the respondent that the premium was paid through Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda and that the agent namely Tushar Hate also assisted the deceased life assured at Khaparkheda for submitting proposal and payment of the premium. He therefore submitted that it is the District Consumer Forum Nagpur only which has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Thus according to him the said Forum erred in dismissing the complaints. Hence he requested that the impugned orders may be set aside and complaints may be remanded to District Forum Nagpur for deciding them on merits. He also submitted that if both complaints are remanded to the Forum below, he will take necessary steps for joining the Bank of India, branch Khaparkheda as opposite party No.2.
5. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent submitted that there is no merit in these appeals. He invited our attention to the policy documents in which there is a clause No.15 regarding submission of claims, clause No.18 relating to the service of notices and clause No.19(i) relating to grievance redressal procedure. He submitted that as per clause No.15 regarding claims, the documents are required to be submitted to the company alongwith the claim intimation. Moreover, it is also stated that the claim payment will be made only in the Indian currency in the office of company situated in Mumbai and as per clause No.19(i) of the said policy document, in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the decision of the office or has not received any response within ten days, he or she may contact the officials namely Vice President, Operation and Customers Services.
6. The learned advocate of the respondent further submitted that as the Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda, District Nagpur is not joined to the complaints, there is no question of now joining the said party to the complaints. He further submitted that the policy documents were issued from the office of Mumbai of the respondent and therefore the District Forum Nagpur has rightly held that it has got no territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that there is no document showing that the policy documents were received by the appellants from Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda, and thus no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum of Nagpur. Hence he requested that both appeals may be dismissed.
7. The policy documents filed on record are annexed with covering letters dated 05/02/2013 and 28/10/2013. Both the said letters are addressed to deceased Roshan Shantaram Gawande. The letters are signed by Girish Kulkarni, who is the M.D. and C.E.O. of the respondent. The said letters are issued on the letter head of Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Co.Ltd. This is the same respondent which is joined to both complaints. The address of Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Co.Ltd is given in the original complaints by the appellants as “Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Co.Ltd., through its M.D. and C.E.O., Registered Office Star House, 3rd floor West Wing, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400703”.
8. Thus it is clear that both the policies were sent directly by the respondent from its address of Mumbai to the deceased life assured.
9. It is also seen from the policy documents that the Bank of India is the corporate agent and name of its advocate is shown in the policy as Tushar S.Hate. The proposal forms filed on record of these appeals also show the name of Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda about payment of premium of Rs.25,000/- through that bank. The said proposal also shows the name of the account holder as “Roshan Gawande, Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda”. It also bears stamp of the Bank of India of the branch Nagpur below the particular of bank accounts.
10. It is also pertinent to note that the Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda is not joined to both the complaints as one of the opposite party. In our view the payment of premium of both the policies through the Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda does not constitute any cause of action at Khaparkheda within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum of Nagpur. We find that neither the Bank of India, branch at Khaparkheda nor the aforesaid agent is joined to the complaints. Hence there is no question of now remanding both the complaints to the Forum for joining them for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of District Forum of Nagpur.
11. We also find that as no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum Nagpur and as the opposite party/respondent herein carries on its business at Mumbai, the District Consumer Forum of Nagpur has rightly held that it has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Hence we are of the considered view that there is no merit in both these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly following order is passed.
// ORDER //
- Both these appeals bearing Nos.A/18/140 and A/18/141 are hereby dismissed.
- The appellants are at liberty to file consumer complaint before the competent District Consumer Forum in accordance with the provisions of law.
- No order as to cost in these appeals.
- Copy of this order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.
