DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C. NO- 652/2016

Date of Filing:                                       Date of Admission:                              Date of Disposal:

21.10.2016                                              08.11.2016                                              28.09.2018

Complainant :-              1.       Md. Akhtar Hossain,

Son of Late Daresh Ali,

Of Village & Post Office- Baluachara,

Police Station- Kaliachak, District- Malda,

West Bengal, Pin- 743306

=Vs=

Opposite Parties :-        1.       The Claims Review Committee,

Bajaj Allianz Life

Insurance Company Limited,

5^th Floor, GE Plaza,

Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune,

Pin- 411006,  Maharashtra

2.       Assistant Manager,

Insurance Ombudsman,

Hindustan Building,

4^th floor, 4, Chittanranjan Avenue,

Kolkata- 700072

P R E S E N T  :-        Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.

  :-       Smt. Silpi Majumder  ……………………………………Member.

Final Order

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not disburse the entire amount in favour of the Complainant till filing of this complaint.

On 25.09.2018 this record was fixed for showing cause by the Complainant and filing questionnaire by the OP-1. The Complainant had filed reply to the show cause. Upon perusal of the same we are of the opinion that the cause as shown by the Complainant on affidavit is almost satisfactory, hence it is accepted. In respect of filing questionnaire the Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 submitted that as the Complainant did not adduce any evidence on affidavit, question does not arise for filing questionnaire. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 that the Complainant has filed rejoinder after filing written version by this OP, which tantamount to the reply to his written version. According to the OP-1 until and unless evidence is adduced, filing questionnaire does not arise.

Cont………………2

:2:

The Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 has also attracted our notice to the maintainability of this complaint as the addresses of the OPs as mentioned in the cause title of the complaint do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Accordingly the OP-1 had prayed for passing necessary order in this regard at first.

In respect of evidence it is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant did not adduce evidence on affidavit, rather filed rejoinder. So as the evidence on behalf of the Complainant has not yet been adduced, hence liability cannot caste upon the shoulder of the OPs for filing questionnaire. But due to inadvertence abovementioned direction was given to the OP-1.

In respect of the maintainability of the complaint on the point of its territorial jurisdiction we have noticed that admittedly the addresses of the OPs as disclosed by the Complainant in the cause titled of the complaint do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. During on this point the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the OP-1 has Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence this complaint is before this ld. Forum. In the sake of argument, if that be so, then the branch office of the OP-1 which lies within the jurisdiction of this ld. Forum has not been party in this proceeding. We have also noticed that regarding the instant dispute of the Complainant there is no role of the branch office of the OP-1, which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Admittedly the OP-1 has branch office in all over India, but the Complainant is not entitled to initiate the proceeding before any District Forum in India. In view of the judgment of Sonic Surgical (supra), wherein it is hold that the ‘Branch Office’ means where the cause of has arisen in part or wholly. Having regard to the said observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we are to say that as no cause of action arose with the branch office situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, hence this complaint cannot be maintainable before this Ld. Forum. We got much substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 as the OP-1 has successfully proved that the complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Forum in view of the Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the consumer complaint being no-652/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest being barred by territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint there is no order as to cost.

Cont……………3

:3:

However the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum/Commission/Court for redressal of his grievance, if not barred otherwise.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

Member                                                                                                                       President

Dictated & Corrected by