The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/S Smt. K.B. Kamakshi W/o.of Late K.B. Kumarswamy - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 91/06

Smt. K.B. Kamakshi W/o.of Late K.B. Kumarswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Prasanna Sharma

28 Nov 2006

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 91/06

Smt. K.B. Kamakshi W/o.of Late K.B. Kumarswamy						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. K.B. Kamkashi against Respondents- (1) Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur and (2) Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bellary. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is the legally wedded wife of K.B.Kumarswamy R/o. K.K. Halli of Tq. & Dist. Bellary who was the sole earning member. Her husband was the R.C. Holder and owner of Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No. KA-34/5297 which was a Light Motor Vehicle. He was also having a valid driving licence vide D.L. No. 2541/2001 which was valid from 27-01-01 to 26-01-21. The said vehicle was insured with the Respondent vide Insurance Policy bearing No. 422302/2005/5108 and Cover Note No. 187646 which was valid from 16-02-05 to 15-02-06. The policy covered under Personal Accident U/s. iii for owner/driver (CSI) of Rs. 2,00,000/- for which he had paid extra premium amount under the said policy. The complainant husband K.B. Kumarswamy was personally driving the said vehicle. On 11-06-05 at about 8-30 PM while he was so driving his vehicle at that time due to rash & negligent act of the driver of Crane vehicle bearing No. AP-10/P-5611 hit against the said Auto, due to which this Auto turtled by the side of the road resulting in grievous injuries to the husband of the complainant and the vehicle got damaged and on the very next day her husband K.B. Kumarswamy succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The details of the accident and cause of death which shows in the FIR, complaint, Post Mortem Report and Death Certificate which are filed in this case. The complainant approached the Respondents and requested to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Personal Death Claim by submitting Claim Forms and other relevant documents. But both the Respondents prolonged the matter on one or the other reasons and have not settled the claim which itself goes to show the deficiency of service by the Respondents. Her deceased husband has not violated any of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, Permit, Driving Licence and Traffic rules as per the policy conditions. As per the Insurance Policy the injured policyholder is entitled for compensation and if his death occurs then his legal heir/wife is legally entitled to claim the policy amount and other benefits. In the instant case the complainant being legally wedded wife is entitled to claim compensation and other benefits. But on the contrary the Respondents have made too much delay in settling the claim and lastly they repudiated the claim through letter dt. 30-01-06 on the ground that the driver-K.B. Kumarswamy had no effective D.L. to drive such vehicle at the time of accident. The action on the part of Respondents is illegal without any basis and with an intention to escape from the liability and so to Respondents have repudiated her claim. Her late husband was having valid D.L. to drive such type of vehicle as per the clarification of letter issued by Licencing Authority. The RTO Bellary have issued an Endorsement dt. 03-09-05 stating that Light Motor Vehicle of all category of vehicle comes under ULU (ULW) of the vehicle not exceeding 6,750 Kg (A/3 three wheeler,_A/R Delivery Van T/Ts and others). The DL issued is valid and effective one and further clarified by the Transport Department as per letter dt. 07-10-05 that the driver of holder drives L.M.V. (A/R private and A/R Yellow Board). As per the technical aspects, there is no difference in driving and structure. The letters of Transport Department are filed for kind perusal of this Forum. Even after clarification and complying of all necessary requirements of law as desired by the Respondent, the Respondents have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant which clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. On account of which the complainant has suffered un-necessary trouble, hardship, harassment, mental tension. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has prayed for direction to both the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- Personal Accident Claims and award a global compensation towards trouble, hardship, harassment, mental tension, pain and more and to grant such relief which Forum deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Respondents No-1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed common written statement as under:- The alleged accident has taken place at Bellary and the vehicle Insurance Policy is issued at Bellary which is beyond a territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Without prejudice to the above said contention it is submitted that the present complaint on the face of it, is devoid of any material substance. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. The complainant is guilty of approaching this Forum with a malafide intention to derive un-due and illegal gains from the Respondents. The relationship of the complainant with the deceased is not within the knowledge of this Respondent. The insured was holding only a Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport) and the vehicle involved in the accident is a Bajaj goods carrying vehicle which requires a driving licence to drive a goods/transport vehicle. There is no endorsement on the DL of the deceased to drive a transport goods vehicle which amounts to violation of policy condition. Consequently the complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits from this Respondents there is no deficiency of service and the repudiation is valid and there is no cause of action. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn- affidavit as examination-in-chief and the Respondents in-rebuttal have filed the sworn affidavit of Respondent No-1 as examination-in-chief. Both the parties have not chosen to cross-examine. The complainant has got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. The Respondents have not filed any documents. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, as alleged by the Respondents? 2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2) Needs no consideration. 3 As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. At the very out set we shall discuss Point NO-1, which is a legal point involving jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint. The Respondents in their written statement and in the affidavit-evidence have specifically contended that the alleged accident of vehicle has taken place at Bellary and policy of Insurance is issued at Bellary which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and so this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. With this back-ground in-view now let us consider the case of the complainant. The complaint averments at Para- 1 to 4 manifest that late K.B. Kumarswamy the husband of the complainant was the owner, RC Holder of Auto Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No. KA-34/5297 and he was driving the said Auto and was having a valid driving licence bearing No. 2541/2001 with effect from 27-01-01 to 26-01-21 and that this vehicle was insured with the Respondent as per the Insurance Policy bearing No. 422302/2005/5108 and Cover Note No. 187646 with effect from 16-02-05 to 15-02-06. It is the further case of the complainant that late K.B. Kumarswamy was personally driving the vehicle and on 11-06-05 at about 8-30 PM while he was so driving his vehicle at that time due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Crane vehicle bearing No. AP-10/P-5611, hit against the said Auto due to which the said Auto turtled by the side of the road resulting in grievous injuries to late K.B. Kumarswamy who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the very next day. In the complaint or in the sworn-affidavit the complainant it not specifically stated as to where or at which place the accident took place or as to from which Branch Office of LIC the Insurance Policy was taken place. However the documents produced by the complainant specifically shows on this aspect of the matter. 7. Ex.P-1 the Copy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle shows that the Insurance Policy was taken from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at Bellary. Ex.P-2 is the copy of FIR with complaint. A close perusal of this Ex.P-2 shows that a criminal complaint was filed by one Yarragutti Hanumantha R/o. Vanenur village in the jurisdiction of Moka Police Station of Bellary Rural Circle, stating that on the date of accident he along with his relative Mallikarjuna and two other passengers of his village- Bushappa & Yellamma were going in the said Auto and after some time two more ladies and some persons also sat in the said Auto. When the said Auto was proceeding towards Vanenur village-side at that time a lorry bearing No.AP-10/P-5611 came from back side of their Auto with great speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Auto as a result of which they fell down sustained injuries and the Auto driver K.B. Kumarswamy sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot .etc. Ex.P-3 is the Copy of Post Mortem Report on the dead body of late K.B. Kumarswamy. It shows that the Post Mortem Examination was conducted by the Medical Officer Primary Health Center Moka of Bellary Tq. and District. Ex.P-4 is the Copy of Death Certificate issued by Registrar of Births & Deaths (Moka Gram Panchayat of Bellary Tq. & District). Ex.P-5 is the Copy of Certificate of Registration of the Auto Bajaj issued by RTO Bellary. Ex.P-6 is the Copy of Driving Licence of Auto driver K.B. Kumarswamy issued by ARTO Bellary. Ex.P-7 is the Copy of Endorsement Letter issued by RTO Bellary. Ex.P-8 is the Copy of letter addressed to Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bellary issued by ARTO Bellary. Ex.P-9 is the Copy of Repudiation letter dt. 30-01-06 issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bellary addressed to the residential address at K.K. Halli Tq. & Dist. Bellary. So from all these documentary-evidence it is the crystal clear that the vehicle Auto was insured with the Branch Office at Bellary, Driving licence of the late K.B. Kumarswamy was issued by RTO at Bellary and the vehicle accident has taken place in the jurisdiction of Moka Police Station of Tq. & Dist. Bellary. So it amply shows that the entire cause of action has arisen in Bellary District. 8. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that even though the cause of action has arisen in Bellary District but there is Branch Office of Respondent Company at Raichur, so the Raichur Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In-support of his argument the learned counsel has relied on decision reported in III 2000 CPJ 274 of Uttar Pradesh State Commission and extract copy of commentary from book Consumer Protection in India by P.K. Mumzumdar on section-11 of C.P. Act Head Note 19.Complaint can be filed at Branch Office. at page 509. The ruling of Uttar Pradesh State Commission Head Note reads as under:- (i) Jurisdiction__ Branch Office Lucknow and Noida__ Business spread in various districts of Uttar Pradesh jurisdiction lies in Lucknow. The commentary on section 11 Head Note No-19 reads as under:- Complaint can be filed at Branch Office. Where the cause of action for filing the complaint arose either in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh or at Malegaon in Maharashtra but the complaint was filed at Madras on the ground that the Respondent had its Branch Office at Madras. Held, tht the District Forum at Madras had jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.2. [*2 Sabhari Spinning Mills Ltd., V. Regional Manager, Transort Corporation of India 1999 (1) CPR 284 (TN)]. 9. As against this the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the accident had taken place in Bellary District the vehicle Insurance has been taken at Bellary and Repudiation letter has been given to the residential addres at Bellary District. So Bellary District Consumer Forum is having territorial jurisdiction as per section 11 of C.P. Act and so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. He further submitted that the term Branch Office as referred in the two decisions are for limited purpose of the Respondents Firm against which the complaint was filed in those cases. But in the instant case merely because Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., is spread all over India it cannot be said that the Complainant-Consumer in Uttar Pradesh can file complaint in this Forum at Raichur because of Branch Office of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., at Raichur. We find considerable force in his argument. The complainant in this case has filed this complaint against Respondent NO-1 Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company ltd., Branch Office, City Talkies Road at Raichur and Respondent No-2 Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Krishnamachari Road Bellary. The documentary evidence produced at Ex.P-1 to P-9 especially the vehicle insurance has been taken from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., at Krishnamachari Road Bellary vide Ex.P-1. which is Respondent NO-2 in this complaint. The FIR with complaint at Ex.P-2 as seen above shows that the vehicle accident has occurred within jurisdiction of Moka Police Station in Tq. & District Bellary. The driving licence has been issued from RTO Bellary. The Repudiation letter dt. 30-01-06 at Ex.P-9 given to the residential address in Bellary District. The Respondent NO-1 in this complaint is Branch Office Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur which is in no way concerned with the vehicle insurance taken by late policyholder K.B. Kumarswamy. So clause- A & B of section 11 of C.P. Act is not at all attracted especially when the Branch Office of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., wherein the Insurance Policy was taken by late policyholder as per Ex.P-1 is at Bellary and office of Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Respondent NO-2 in the present complaint) is also situated at Bellary further vehicle accident has taken place in Bellary District and so as per section 11 (c) of C.P. Act the cause of action has also arisen in Bellary District where the District Consumer Forum is situated. Under these circumstances, merely because the Branch Office of Oriental Insurance is also situated herein at Raichur, this Raichur Forum is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Therefore we are not in- agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and the two rulings relied upon by him are not attracted to the facts & circumstances of the present case as they are on different footing. So we hold that this Raichur Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO. 2 & 3 10. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the ousting jurisdiction of this Forum. So Point No-2 & 3 needs no consideration. In the result we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint of the complainant is dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Return the complaint & documents filed there to, the complainant for presentation to the proper Forum. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 27-11-06.) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On Leave Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. K.B. Kamkashi against Respondents- (1) Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur and (2) Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bellary. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is the legally wedded wife of K.B.Kumarswamy R/o. K.K. Halli of Tq. & Dist. Bellary who was the sole earning member. Her husband was the R.C. Holder and owner of Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No. KA-34/5297 which was a Light Motor Vehicle. He was also having a valid driving licence vide D.L. No. 2541/2001 which was valid from 27-01-01 to 26-01-21. The said vehicle was insured with the Respondent vide Insurance Policy bearing No. 422302/2005/5108 and Cover Note No. 187646 which was valid from 16-02-05 to 15-02-06. The policy covered under Personal Accident U/s. iii for owner/driver (CSI) of Rs. 2,00,000/- for which he had paid extra premium amount under the said policy. The complainant husband K.B. Kumarswamy was personally driving the said vehicle. On 11-06-05 at about 8-30 PM while he was so driving his vehicle at that time due to rash & negligent act of the driver of Crane vehicle bearing No. AP-10/P-5611 hit against the said Auto, due to which this Auto turtled by the side of the road resulting in grievous injuries to the husband of the complainant and the vehicle got damaged and on the very next day her husband K.B. Kumarswamy succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The details of the accident and cause of death which shows in the FIR, complaint, Post Mortem Report and Death Certificate which are filed in this case. The complainant approached the Respondents and requested to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Personal Death Claim by submitting Claim Forms and other relevant documents. But both the Respondents prolonged the matter on one or the other reasons and have not settled the claim which itself goes to show the deficiency of service by the Respondents. Her deceased husband has not violated any of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, Permit, Driving Licence and Traffic rules as per the policy conditions. As per the Insurance Policy the injured policyholder is entitled for compensation and if his death occurs then his legal heir/wife is legally entitled to claim the policy amount and other benefits. In the instant case the complainant being legally wedded wife is entitled to claim compensation and other benefits. But on the contrary the Respondents have made too much delay in settling the claim and lastly they repudiated the claim through letter dt. 30-01-06 on the ground that the driver-K.B. Kumarswamy had no effective D.L. to drive such vehicle at the time of accident. The action on the part of Respondents is illegal without any basis and with an intention to escape from the liability and so to Respondents have repudiated her claim. Her late husband was having valid D.L. to drive such type of vehicle as per the clarification of letter issued by Licencing Authority. The RTO Bellary have issued an Endorsement dt. 03-09-05 stating that Light Motor Vehicle of all category of vehicle comes under ULU (ULW) of the vehicle not exceeding 6,750 Kg (A/3 three wheeler,_A/R Delivery Van T/Ts and others). The DL issued is valid and effective one and further clarified by the Transport Department as per letter dt. 07-10-05 that the driver of holder drives L.M.V. (A/R private and A/R Yellow Board). As per the technical aspects, there is no difference in driving and structure. The letters of Transport Department are filed for kind perusal of this Forum. Even after clarification and complying of all necessary requirements of law as desired by the Respondent, the Respondents have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant which clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. On account of which the complainant has suffered un-necessary trouble, hardship, harassment, mental tension. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has prayed for direction to both the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- Personal Accident Claims and award a global compensation towards trouble, hardship, harassment, mental tension, pain and more and to grant such relief which Forum deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Respondents No-1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed common written statement as under:- The alleged accident has taken place at Bellary and the vehicle Insurance Policy is issued at Bellary which is beyond a territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Without prejudice to the above said contention it is submitted that the present complaint on the face of it, is devoid of any material substance. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. The complainant is guilty of approaching this Forum with a malafide intention to derive un-due and illegal gains from the Respondents. The relationship of the complainant with the deceased is not within the knowledge of this Respondent. The insured was holding only a Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport) and the vehicle involved in the accident is a Bajaj goods carrying vehicle which requires a driving licence to drive a goods/transport vehicle. There is no endorsement on the DL of the deceased to drive a transport goods vehicle which amounts to violation of policy condition. Consequently the complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits from this Respondents there is no deficiency of service and the repudiation is valid and there is no cause of action. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn- affidavit as examination-in-chief and the Respondents in-rebuttal have filed the sworn affidavit of Respondent No-1 as examination-in-chief. Both the parties have not chosen to cross-examine. The complainant has got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. The Respondents have not filed any documents. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, as alleged by the Respondents? 2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2) Needs no consideration. 3 As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. At the very out set we shall discuss Point NO-1, which is a legal point involving jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint. The Respondents in their written statement and in the affidavit-evidence have specifically contended that the alleged accident of vehicle has taken place at Bellary and policy of Insurance is issued at Bellary which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and so this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. With this back-ground in-view now let us consider the case of the complainant. The complaint averments at Para- 1 to 4 manifest that late K.B. Kumarswamy the husband of the complainant was the owner, RC Holder of Auto Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No. KA-34/5297 and he was driving the said Auto and was having a valid driving licence bearing No. 2541/2001 with effect from 27-01-01 to 26-01-21 and that this vehicle was insured with the Respondent as per the Insurance Policy bearing No. 422302/2005/5108 and Cover Note No. 187646 with effect from 16-02-05 to 15-02-06. It is the further case of the complainant that late K.B. Kumarswamy was personally driving the vehicle and on 11-06-05 at about 8-30 PM while he was so driving his vehicle at that time due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Crane vehicle bearing No. AP-10/P-5611, hit against the said Auto due to which the said Auto turtled by the side of the road resulting in grievous injuries to late K.B. Kumarswamy who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the very next day. In the complaint or in the sworn-affidavit the complainant it not specifically stated as to where or at which place the accident took place or as to from which Branch Office of LIC the Insurance Policy was taken place. However the documents produced by the complainant specifically shows on this aspect of the matter. 7. Ex.P-1 the Copy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle shows that the Insurance Policy was taken from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at Bellary. Ex.P-2 is the copy of FIR with complaint. A close perusal of this Ex.P-2 shows that a criminal complaint was filed by one Yarragutti Hanumantha R/o. Vanenur village in the jurisdiction of Moka Police Station of Bellary Rural Circle, stating that on the date of accident he along with his relative Mallikarjuna and two other passengers of his village- Bushappa & Yellamma were going in the said Auto and after some time two more ladies and some persons also sat in the said Auto. When the said Auto was proceeding towards Vanenur village-side at that time a lorry bearing No.AP-10/P-5611 came from back side of their Auto with great speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Auto as a result of which they fell down sustained injuries and the Auto driver K.B. Kumarswamy sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot .etc. Ex.P-3 is the Copy of Post Mortem Report on the dead body of late K.B. Kumarswamy. It shows that the Post Mortem Examination was conducted by the Medical Officer Primary Health Center Moka of Bellary Tq. and District. Ex.P-4 is the Copy of Death Certificate issued by Registrar of Births & Deaths (Moka Gram Panchayat of Bellary Tq. & District). Ex.P-5 is the Copy of Certificate of Registration of the Auto Bajaj issued by RTO Bellary. Ex.P-6 is the Copy of Driving Licence of Auto driver K.B. Kumarswamy issued by ARTO Bellary. Ex.P-7 is the Copy of Endorsement Letter issued by RTO Bellary. Ex.P-8 is the Copy of letter addressed to Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bellary issued by ARTO Bellary. Ex.P-9 is the Copy of Repudiation letter dt. 30-01-06 issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bellary addressed to the residential address at K.K. Halli Tq. & Dist. Bellary. So from all these documentary-evidence it is the crystal clear that the vehicle Auto was insured with the Branch Office at Bellary, Driving licence of the late K.B. Kumarswamy was issued by RTO at Bellary and the vehicle accident has taken place in the jurisdiction of Moka Police Station of Tq. & Dist. Bellary. So it amply shows that the entire cause of action has arisen in Bellary District. 8. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that even though the cause of action has arisen in Bellary District but there is Branch Office of Respondent Company at Raichur, so the Raichur Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In-support of his argument the learned counsel has relied on decision reported in III 2000 CPJ 274 of Uttar Pradesh State Commission and extract copy of commentary from book Consumer Protection in India by P.K. Mumzumdar on section-11 of C.P. Act Head Note 19.Complaint can be filed at Branch Office. at page 509. The ruling of Uttar Pradesh State Commission Head Note reads as under:- (i) Jurisdiction__ Branch Office Lucknow and Noida__ Business spread in various districts of Uttar Pradesh jurisdiction lies in Lucknow. The commentary on section 11 Head Note No-19 reads as under:- Complaint can be filed at Branch Office. Where the cause of action for filing the complaint arose either in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh or at Malegaon in Maharashtra but the complaint was filed at Madras on the ground that the Respondent had its Branch Office at Madras. Held, tht the District Forum at Madras had jurisdiction to entertain such complaint.2. [*2 Sabhari Spinning Mills Ltd., V. Regional Manager, Transort Corporation of India 1999 (1) CPR 284 (TN)]. 9. As against this the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the accident had taken place in Bellary District the vehicle Insurance has been taken at Bellary and Repudiation letter has been given to the residential addres at Bellary District. So Bellary District Consumer Forum is having territorial jurisdiction as per section 11 of C.P. Act and so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. He further submitted that the term Branch Office as referred in the two decisions are for limited purpose of the Respondents Firm against which the complaint was filed in those cases. But in the instant case merely because Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., is spread all over India it cannot be said that the Complainant-Consumer in Uttar Pradesh can file complaint in this Forum at Raichur because of Branch Office of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., at Raichur. We find considerable force in his argument. The complainant in this case has filed this complaint against Respondent NO-1 Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company ltd., Branch Office, City Talkies Road at Raichur and Respondent No-2 Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Krishnamachari Road Bellary. The documentary evidence produced at Ex.P-1 to P-9 especially the vehicle insurance has been taken from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., at Krishnamachari Road Bellary vide Ex.P-1. which is Respondent NO-2 in this complaint. The FIR with complaint at Ex.P-2 as seen above shows that the vehicle accident has occurred within jurisdiction of Moka Police Station in Tq. & District Bellary. The driving licence has been issued from RTO Bellary. The Repudiation letter dt. 30-01-06 at Ex.P-9 given to the residential address in Bellary District. The Respondent NO-1 in this complaint is Branch Office Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur which is in no way concerned with the vehicle insurance taken by late policyholder K.B. Kumarswamy. So clause- A & B of section 11 of C.P. Act is not at all attracted especially when the Branch Office of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., wherein the Insurance Policy was taken by late policyholder as per Ex.P-1 is at Bellary and office of Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Respondent NO-2 in the present complaint) is also situated at Bellary further vehicle accident has taken place in Bellary District and so as per section 11 (c) of C.P. Act the cause of action has also arisen in Bellary District where the District Consumer Forum is situated. Under these circumstances, merely because the Branch Office of Oriental Insurance is also situated herein at Raichur, this Raichur Forum is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Therefore we are not in- agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and the two rulings relied upon by him are not attracted to the facts & circumstances of the present case as they are on different footing. So we hold that this Raichur Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO. 2 & 3 10. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the ousting jurisdiction of this Forum. So Point No-2 & 3 needs no consideration. In the result we pass the following order. ORDER The complaint of the complainant is dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Return the complaint & documents filed there to, the complainant for presentation to the proper Forum. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 27-11-06.) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On Leave Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.