IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 18/10 DATED 30.03.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant M.Prasanna Kumar, <br /> S/o Mahadevappa,<br /> R/o Channapatna Village<br /> Nanjangud Taluk,<br /> Mysore District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. H.S.Mallikarjuna Swamy, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Manager,<br /> United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,<br /> Chamaraja Double Road,<br /> Near Ramaswamy Circle,<br /> Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Jaganath Suresh Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 18.01.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 02.02.2010<br /> Date of order : 30.03.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTHS 28 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking damages towards fire accident against the opposite party insurance company.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, complainant is a tobacco grower having a S.B. Account with Cauvery Kalpatharau Grameena Bank, Nanjangud. There is tie-up between the said bank and the insurance company. Complainant has obtained fire and peril policy. Bank has deducted the premium and remitted the same to the opposite party. On 24.09.2009, fire accident occurred. It was intimated to the bank and the company. Insurance company surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,90,650/-. But, only Rs.44,000/- was offered. Complainant did not receive that amount. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed version contending that, it is not at all issued any fire policy to the complainant or to the bank. The complainant has not mentioned particulars of policy. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the opposite party also, an affidavit is filed. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The complainant has alleged that, he has obtained fire and peril policy from the opposite party. That is denied by the opposite party. Hence, when the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the opposite party insurance company, first of all he has to prove the existence of insurance policy. To prove deficiency in service, service of any particular description must be made available to the user. <br /> <br /> 8. After the opposite party filed version, contending that the policy particulars are not furnished, for the complainant, certain documents are produced. So also, along with memo, policy number is furnished. The policy that the complainant claims pertains to Kollegal Branch. Prior to filing of the complaint, it appears complainant had claimed damages and copy of the said letter is produced. That letter was addressed to Kollegal Branch. Thus, considering these documents, it is clear that, Kollegal Branch of the United India Insurance Company Ltd., had issued the policy to the complainant, but not the present opposite party. Hence, when opposite party has not at all issued any policy to the complainant, obsolutely there is no liability or responsibility on the part of it to pay any damages to the complainant. Opposite party has not at all offered to render any kind of service to the complainant. Obsolutely, there is no relation between the complainant and the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 9. During the course of arguments, learned advocate for the complainant also admitted that, opposite party branch has not issued any policy and in fact the Kollegal Branch has issued the policy. Kollegal Branch is not a party to the present proceedings and against said branch, no relief is sought. Further, said branch is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that, fire accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Assuming that, fire accident occurred within the jurisdiction of this Forum and cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum, only for that reason, the complainant cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, which is not at all concerned to the insurance contract. If at all, there is any deficiency in service and any liability to pay compensation or damages, it must be on the part of Kollegal Branch. The opposite party branch is nothing to do with the claim of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th March 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />