Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/14/2020

R PREMKUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER/OFFICER IN CHARGE ,THE BHARATHI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S L PADMANABHAN

10 Jul 2020

ORDER

 

ORDER ON ADMISSION OF COMPLAINT  

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

       

This complaint has filed by complainant to direct the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs)-the Bharati Axa Life Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru to return the policy amount of Rs.45,000=00 deposited by them with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of commencement of policy till the date of realization and Rs.25,000=00 as compensation for causing inconvenience, mental agony and also litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00.

 

          2. It is the case of complainant that they have obtained health policy from the OPs vide policy No.500-4030234. The complainant had paid three yearly installments of Rs.15,000=00 each total amounting to Rs.45,000=00. Subsequently the complainant has discontinued the payment of installments for the reason that the branch office at Tumakuru was closed and no feedback from the company. The OPs officer has recently offered to pay Rs.27,890=00 for payment of Rs.45,000=00. Hence, this complaint.

 

          3. The OPs are carrying their business at Bengaluru. The complainant has produced computer generated statement with regard to policy details. According to this document the complainant has paid two installments of Rs.15,000=00 each on 6-9-2011 and 31-8-2010. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgement. This complaint has filed on 29-2-2020 and it was posted for hearing on admission on 3-3-2020, 10-3-2020 and on both hearing dates the complainant and learned counsel were remained absent. On 18-3-2020 the learned counsel for the complainant sought time to convince on the point of jurisdiction. On 3-4-2020 and 12-5-2020 the case was adjourned on account of lockdown. Again on 18-6-2020 and 1-7-2020 the complainant and his learned counsel were remained absent hence, the case posted for orders on admission.

 

          4. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum;

“(1) Subject to the other provisions of the Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees [twenty lakhs]].

 

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business, or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or

 

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain;

PROVIDED that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

 

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

 

          5. The cause title of complaint indicates that the OPs are carrying their business at Bengaluru. The complainant has not produced policy document or premium receipt to show that the branch office at Tumakuru was working during the payment of premium amount or obtaining policy. The complainant would have produced premium receipt to show that they have paid the premium at Tumakuru then it would have held that the part of cause of action has arisen at Tumakuru as per Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has not placed any material to show that the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum since the OPs are carrying business at Bengaluru. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

 

ORDER

 

The complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

The complainant may file the complaint before the competent Forum having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 

          Return the documents to the complainant.

 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10^th day of July, 2020).

 

 

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT