West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/49/2019

ASHOK GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SR.BRANCH MANAGER,NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri
Kshudiram Basu Bipanan Kendra (2nd Floor)
H. C. Road, P.O. and P.S. Prodhan Nagar,
Dist. Darjeeling.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/49/2019
( Date of Filing : 06 Sep 2019 )
 
1. ASHOK GOYAL
S/O LATE DURGA PRASAD GOYAL,MURLIDHAR COMPLEX,STATION FEEDER ROAD,SILIGURI-34005,DIST-DARJEELING.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE SR.BRANCH MANAGER,NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,PRATAP MARKET,SEVOKE ROAD,SILIGURI-734401,DIST-DARJEELING.
2. MEDICARE INSURANCE TPA SERVICES(INDIA) PVT. LTD.(A UNIT OF MEDI ASSIST INSURANCE TPA PVT. LTD.)
THAPAR HOUSE,25 BRABOURNE ROAD,KOLKATA-700001.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Tapan Kumar Barman MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 25 Sep 2019
Final Order / Judgement

To-day is fixed for complainant’s furnishing the municipal ward No. of OP No.1.

The complainant furnishes municipal ward No. accordingly which is 44 and Ward No. 44 of Siliguri Municipal Corporation falls within the extended area taken from Bhaktinagar P.S. under Jalpaiguri District.  Hence OP NO.1 is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

OP No.2 is situated in Kolkata as per cause-title of the plaint.  Hence OP No.2 does not, of course, fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Complainant files another petition praying for addition of Divisional office of OP No.1 at Siliguri as OP No.3 and of Branch office of OP No.2 at Siliguri as OP No.4.

Heard the complainant. Perused the petition. Considered.

That the omission of O/O Divisional Manager of the OP No.1 and Branch office of OP No.2 both at Siliguri proposed as OP No. 3 & 4 respectively from the complaint was due to inadvertence, has not been stated in this petition.

How the Divisional Manager of OP No.1 and Branch office of OP No. 2 are parties essential to the complaint is not explained in the petition. Such explanation is regarded as the proposal/application for health policy in question is not submitted through these offices nor is the policy Deed received by the complainant through them.

The instant petition suffers from want of clarity why it (which could have been submitted earlier, if due to inadvertent omission) is filed to-day to-gather with the complainant’s furnishing of municipal Ward No. of OP No.1 in compliance with order No. 02 dtd. 16.09.2019.

Hence the instant petition praying for addition of aforesaid offices respectively as OP No. 3 & 4 is rejected.

Consequently, the complaint, being thus barred by territorial jurisdiction, is NOT admitted.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Tapan Kumar Barman]
MEMBER
 

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.