JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that the agent of op/company approached the complainant and explained about different policies and the said agent further explained benefits of various policies.  Being satisfied with the representation made by the agent, the complainant applied for a marine insurance policy on 19.07.2011 and subsequently on payment of premium of Rs. 61,768/- policy document was issued being No. 51080121110200200012 and validity of the insurance was from 19.07.2011 to 18.07.2012 and the sum insured for the said policy was Rs. 40,00,000/- and the said policy covered all risks during transit under ITC-A and SRCC clauses.

          Complainant suffered numerous shortages/damages in transit on different dates and for one of such shortages in transit, complainant lodged its claim under the said policy on 24.10.2011 being complaint No.124366653 for a sum of Rs. 26,331/- and op settled that claim in January, 2012 for a sum of Rs. 16,331/- which was the correct sum after deducting standard policy excess of Rs. 10,000/-.  Subsequently complainant suffered shortages and damages during transit on different occasions for which complainant lodged 7 claims on 18.11.2011, 28.12.2011, 02.12.2011, 28.12.2011, 16.02.2012, 16.02.2012 & 28.03.2012 for a total sum of Rs. 1,54,334/-.  But op failed and neglected to process  the legitimate claim of complainant on false and frivolous pretext and it is pertinent to mention that complainant regularly paid the premium under the said policy and fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the policy.  So, complainant is entitled to get the claim but it was wrongly closed without any reasons.  But op reported that proper documents were not submitted by the complainant in respect of Consignment No. 124366754 dated 15.10.2011, No. 124313578 dated 15.11.2011 and No. 124313472 dated 11.11.2011 and as such those claims were closed and complainant by its letter dated 20.02.2012 informed the op that all the documents along with claim form regarding said policies were duly submitted with the op and submitted proof of the same and the representative of the complainant also met with the op on 16.02.2012 regarding the said matter and op reopened the claims and in respect of the said letters, op was reluctant to process the claim of the complainant and by a letter dated 13.06.2012 op informed the complainant that it has sanctioned the consolidated payment of Rs. 8,991/- towards the Consignment No. 124366681 dated 01.10.2011, No. 124366754 dated 15.10.2011, No. 124313578 dated 15.11.2011 and No. 124330038 dated 17.12.2011.  It is submitted that the op sanctioned a consolidated amount of Rs. 8,991/- against a claim of Rs. 70,587/- without assigning any reason for such reduction and the op further sanctioned a sum of Rs. 3,356/- in respect of consignment No. 124313472 dated 11.11.2011 against a claim of Rs. 19,081/- without assigning any reasons for such deduction.

          Being highly dissatisfied and aggrieved with the arbitrary decision of the op returned both the claim vouchers amounting to Rs. 3,356/- and Rs. 8,991/- for further determination and decision.  Further op did not process the claim and lodged against consignment no. 124330035 dated 17.12.2011 and consignment No. 124283069 dated 04.02.2012 and op repudiated the claim of the complainant without assigning any valid reason.  So, complainant filed a complaint before Insurance Ombudsman.  The said complaint has been closed.  Subsequently being dissatisfied about arbitrary decision of the op, complainant sent demand notice on 03.09.2012 through his Advocate calling upon the op to pay a sum of Rs. 1,54,334/- less standard policy excess being due and payable by the op against the insurance claims of the complainant together with interest.  Complainant further demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages for adopting unfair trade practice and also for further relief.

          On the other hand op submitted that onus is upon the complaint to prove the deficiency and negligence on the part of the op’s company and further it is submitted that it is the prerogative of the insurance co. to assess and quantify and insurance claim and as such either contractually or legally, there has been no deficiency in service in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.  Complainant has not established in any manner his entitlement of any relief as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Further it is submitted that the present complaint is frivolous in view of the fact against this op because they have already reported the complainant by intimating that the said policy was not issued by the op.  But it was issued from Head Office of Registered New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 87, M.G. Road, Mumbai – 400001 and practically policy was issued by Broker Aditya Birla Brokers India Ltd. ( Id. No. 10774785) and brochure’s branch office is at 15C, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Octavius Chamber, 5^th Floor, Kolkata.  But this policy was not issued by the op of Kolkata office.  Accordingly op New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata has nothing to do.  Complainant also filed one of his grievance to the office of the Insurance Ombudsman but office of the Ombudsman also reported that the complaint should be accepted where the policy is taken or given in an individual capacity.  So, it is the decision of the Ombudsman.  But considering the entire materials on record, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency or negligence on the part of the op for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                 Decision with reasons

          After considering the entire complaint and the written version and also considering the document as filed by the complainant, it is found that complainant lodged a complaint always to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIA) at its registered head office of NIA Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 and in all respect part payment or repudiation or closing of the claim of the complainant was settled by the head office of NIA Co. Ltd. at Mumbai.  At any point of time the claim of the complainant was not decided or received from the complainant at Kolkata office.  Because complainant purchased the said policy from the Head Office through broker’s branch at Aditya Birla Brokers Indian Ltd.  But complainant did not purchase the policy from NIA Co. Ltd. of Kolkata Branch.  So, there is no liability of branch of NIA Co. Ltd. of Kolkata to be made as party as the said office had/had no right to decide the claim of the complainant because complainant always sent his claim to the Head Office of NIA Building at Mumbai.  At the same time from the policy document, it is clear that complainant’s policy was issued from the Head Office of NIA Co. Ltd. at Mumbai and issuing office was Aditya Birla Brokers India Ltd. which is brokers branch situated at 15C Hemanta Basu Sarani at Kolkata.  But the said open policy was not issued by the present op NIA Branch office at Kolkata the present op no.1.  So, considering the above fact, it is clear that complainant has miserably failed to prove by any cogent document or evidence that op no.2 issued the policy or op no.2 repudiated the claim or op no.2 closed the claim of the complainant in respect of his claim or there was any transaction in between the op no.1 in respect of this transaction.

          Practically as per provision of Section-11 of the C.P. Act it is clear that when the complaint was filed only op no.1 was made a party.  Subsequently OMX (Express Division of OM Logistics Ltd.) is made a party as op no.2 vide order dated 20.02.2014 and in the present case there is no allegation against op no.2 or there is any complaint.  But only complaint is against op no.1, so relief has been sought for against op no.1.  But only to create jurisdiction, op no.2 is made party without assigning any claim against op no.2, because op no.2 is the carrier through whom complainant sent goods.  Otherwise it is proved from the complaint that on the very date of filing of complaint only NIA Co. Ltd. at Kolkata Office was made party on 26.12.2012 and at the time of admission of the complaint only op no.1 was made party and case was proceeded only against op no.1 on the basis of admitting the case on 30.01.2011.  But subsequently op no.2 is made a party against whom there is no complaint, no relief is sought for and op no.2 is not the insurer or branch office of insurer or broker of the insurer.  So, it is clear that the repudiation or closure of the claim or part payment of the claim everything was done by the NIA Co. Ltd. Head Office at Mumbai as evident from all papers which are also proved by the complainant that the entire transaction was in between the complainant and NIA Co. Ltd. Head Office.  Because the policy was purchased through broker of Aditya Birla Broker Ltd. and policy was issued by the Head Office of NIA Co. Ltd. at Mumbai.

          So, as  per policy document it is clear that there was no liability of the present NIA Co. Ltd. branch office at Kolkata and there was no transaction in between the complainant and present op no.1.  Moreover complainant has not mentioned as op no.1 brokers branch in complaint through whom he purchased the said policy.  At the same time brokers branch has no right to decide any claim because as per rules and regulations the entire claim of the same shall be decided by the NIA Co. Ltd. Head Office at Mumbai and complainant always submitted his claim direct to Head Office but not through brokers branch.  But from the document of the complainant Anexure-A it is clear that information was given by the NIA Co. Ltd. Head Office at Mangalem, Kolkata – 1.  No reply was given by the NIA Co. Ltd. Branch Office at Kolkata.  So, considering the repudiation of claim, settlement of claim made by the op/company Head Office at Mumbai.  Then as per section 11(2)© of C.P. Act, it is found that cause of action arose within the local limits of Mumbai wholly or partly.  So, the consumer/complaint under the C.P. Act must be based on cause of action and cause of action means a bundle of facts which are taken with the law applicable but complainant prayed relief against the op and considering that fact, it is clear that complainant at best may file this complaint against op/company head office, because policy was not issued by the present op no.1, Kolkata Office.  But complainant purchased the said policy from brokers branch of Aditya Birla.  Moreover jurisdiction means the instant territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction basing upon which the Consumer Protection Redressal Forum shall have to adjudicate under the C.P. Act.

          So, considering the above fact and the principle as laid down in Section-11 of C.P. Act it is fact that competent court must be satisfied about but in this case jurisdiction and it is lacking i.e. inherent lack to jurisdiction.  So, considering that and also the office of the Head Office of NIA Co. Ltd. who rejected all the claim or repudiated the claim or closed the claim or settled the claim of the complainant against whom the complaint should be filed.  But the present complaint has been filed against op no.1 & 2 who are no way related with assigning of the said policy or repudiating or closing the claim of the complainant.

          Considering the above fact we are convinced to hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and for which we are in no position to decide the dispute in this Forum.

          In the result, final order is passed.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is returned to the complainant with a finding that this Forum has no jurisdiction in view of the fact in no way cause of action arose against op nos. 1 & 2 and policy was not purchased from op no.1 by the complainant and repudiation and other matter regarding claim of the complainant has all been decided and repudiated or closed by the Head Office of National Assurance Co. Ltd. at Mumbai.  Accordingly return the complaint along with all documents of complainant for refilling the same before the proper Forum as per observation of this Forum.