Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

CC/22/2

SMT.MANJU SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK LIFE INSU.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.02 OF 2022

FILED ON 24.01.2022 DECIDED ON 09.03.2022

 

SMT. MANJU SHARMA                                                                                        …          COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

                 

BRANCH HEAD, KOTAK LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER.                                                                        …         OPP. PARTY

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK       :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

09.03.2022

 

          Shri Alok Kumar, authorised representative for the complainant.

 

 

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

                        This case is taken up today for hearing on IA-1, an application for urgent hearing filed by the complainant seeking early hearing of the matter.

2.                     This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, seeking sum insured of Rs.50 lakhs along with compensation and costs.

3.                     At the outset it is observed that admittedly the complainant has paid Rs.75,516/- as annual premium for a period of four years. As per powers conferred by proviso to Section 47(1) (a) (i), read with sub clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the ‘Act’) the Central Government vide notification dated 30.12.2021 has notified that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, but does not exceed rupees two crore.

 

 

-2-

3.                     In the instant complainant, admittedly the complainant has paid premium amount much less then Rs.50 lakhs.  Thus clearly, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Complaint does not rest with the State Commission.

4.                     Shri Alok Kumar appearing on behalf of the complainant seeks liberty to withdraw the complant and to file the same before the appropriate Commission in accordance with law. He is permitted to do so.  

5.                     As a result, the complaint is permitted to be withdrawn and the same is dismissed as such with grant of liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate District Commission in accordance with law. 

6.                     The amount of court fees deposited by the complainant, if any, be refunded to the complainant.

 

                                                                          (Dr. Monika Malik)                

                                                                           Presiding Member