Delhi

New Delhi

CC/606/2016

Umesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.606/2016                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Umesh Kumar Sharma,

S/o Sh. B.K. Sharma,

182, Khureji Khas,

Opp. Geeta Colony, Delhi-51.

 

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.     Life  Insurance Corporation of India,

Through its Branch Manager,

11-S, H.S.10, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi.

 

2.    Life  Insurance Corporation of India,

Through its Zonal Manager,

Northern Zonal Office,

124, Jeevan Bharti Building,

Tower II, 11^th Floor, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-01.

                                                                                                                         ….....OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a policy from the OP vide policy no.114149533 for 10 years.  The complainant paid all the 10 premiums well within time and lastly in March, 2015. Thereafter, it was the duty of OP to pay the matured amount to the complainant up to March 2015 but they failed to do the same. The complainant contacted officials of OP telephonically and visited their office on several occasions.  On 22.6.2016, the complainant submitted the documents to the OP and the official of the OP assured him that matured amount would be released soon.  After waiting for 15 days, the complainant again approached for getting the matured amount.  This time, the official of the OP informed that the payment has already be disbursed but refused to inform him about the mode of payment.  As such, on 29.7.2016, the complainant lodged a written complaint to the OP for getting the matured amount but all in vain. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  OP has strongly challenged the issue of Territorial jurisdiction. Hence needs to be decided first. UIt is stated on behalf of OP that the policy was issued from Kailash Colony, Delhi which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum , hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  Despite several opportunities, no reply was filed by the complainant to the application.  The argument on the maintainability  of the complaint on the point of territorial jurisdiction heard.

3.     In the present case, the complainant was residing at Geeta Colony, Delhi.  The perusal of the file shows that the policy was issued from Kailash Colony, Delhi which does not fall within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that the cause of action if any arose against the office situated at K.G. Marg, New Delhi falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In other words neither the policy was issued from K.G. Marg office of the OP nor the cause of action if any arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

4.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

5.     Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above.  Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the

case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on  26.11.2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                    MEMBER