BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.

COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 83/2012.

THIS THE  9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012.

P R E S E N T

1.     Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB                             PRESIDENT.

2.    Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB.             MEMBER.

       *****

COMPLAINANT            :-    Smt. K. Vedavati W/o. K. Yenkaiah, aged about

                                                            49 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. C/o. Shivani Nilaya,                                                   H.No. 7-7-26, Savitri Colony, Near Jodu                                                                           Veeranjaneya Temple, Raichur- 584 101.

            //VERSUS//

OPPOSITE PARTY   :-         The Branch Manager,

                                                            L.I. C. of India, Branch Office: Maheboob Nagar,

                                                            (AP)

CLAIM                                   :-         For to direct direct the opposite to make the

                                                            payment of Rs. 50,000/- with bonus and interest                                                   and to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards                                                   damages with other reliefs as deems fit to the                                                                 circumstances of this case.

Date of institution     :-         05-10-12.

Date of disposal        :-         09-11-12.

Complainant represented by Sri. Earanna, Advocate.

-----

This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.

ORDER ON ADMISSION

            This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. K.Vedavathi against LIC of India, Branch Office Maheboob Nagar (AP) U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposite to make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- with bonus with interest and to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.

2.         The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she is the nominee under the policy subscribed by her deceased husband from opposite LIC at Maheboob Nagar, and thereafter the death of her husband, she filed claim petition before the opposite LIC Maheboob Nagar but, it not considered her request with malafide intention and thereby, she filed this complaint for the relief’s as noted in it.

3.         In view of the pleadings of the complaint we perused the documents filed in support of her claim. We heard regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to try the subject matter of this complaint.

4.         In view of the facts and circumstances above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:

1.         Whether this District Consumer Forum Raichur is having           territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this       complaint.

2.         What order?

5.         Our findings on the above points are as under:-

(1)         This District Consumer Forum Raichur, has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.

(2)         In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final         order for the following:

REASONS

POINT NO.1:-

6.         The material facts pleaded by the complainant in this complaint are that.

            Her husband, K. Venkayya subscribed LIC policy from LIC Branch at Maheboob Nagar, at the instance of one LIC Agent by name Krishna, R/o. Kotapalli Tq. Makthal, District: Maheboob Nagar (AP) in Mahebob Nagar.

7.         LIC policy in question was issued by opposite LIC Branch Office situated at Maheboob Nagar (AP).

 8.        Admittedly LIC Branch office at Raichur is not a party in this complaint and more over Raichur LIC Branch Office is not a Branch Office of LIC Branch Office situated at Maheboob Nagar. In the said circumstances, the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant that, complainant and her deceased husband are permanent residents of Raichur is not the proper ground to attract any one of the provisions U/sec. 11(2) (a to c) of C.P. Act and to say that, this DCF Raichur, has territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. The literature submitted by learned advocate for complainant with regard to territorial jurisdiction of DCF is not supporting his contentions. On the other hand, it will support our view, as such, we are of the view that, this DCF Raichur is not having territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. Accordingly, we answered Point No-1. 

POINT NO.2:-

9.         In-view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

            This District Consumer Forum Raichur, has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.

            Hence, return this complaint to the complainant to present it before the proper Forum.

Intimate the complainant accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-11-12)

 Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa                                                                      Sri. Pampapathi,

           Member.                                                                                          President,

District Consumer Forum Raichur.                                                                          District Consumer Forum Raichur.