State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.P. Purohit vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 3 November, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 04 / 2008
K.P. Purohit S/o late Sh. P.D. Purohit
R/o 94, Chaudhary Niwas, Suman Nagar
Dharampur, Dehradun
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Mumbai through its Chairman
Yogkshem, Jeevan Bima Marg, Post Box No. 19953
Mumbai-400021
2. Branch Manager, Branch Office
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Near Navagrah Temple, Agra Road
Hathras
3. Branch Office No. 3, Life Insurance Corporation of India
20, E.C. Road, Survey Chowk, Dehradun
4. Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Haridwar Road, Dehradun
......Respondents / Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3
Appellant in person
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 03/11/2010
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 136 of 2006.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Sh. K.P. Purohit - complainant had taken an insurance policy for sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 2 20.11.1990 from Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hathras Branch
- opposite party No. 2. The premiums were to be deducted from his salary by the employer under the Salary Saving Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The opposite parties made a payment of Rs. 20,328/- on 28.08.2005, the date of maturity of the policy, to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party No. 2 did not give any reason for non-payment of the full maturity amount inspite of making several requests. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum vide its order dated 11.12.2007, dismissed the consumer complaint, on the ground that it was not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
3. We have heard the complainant - appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.
4. The plea taken by the complainant - appellant in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Dehradun is that he has been living in Dehradun after his retirement from service and that the opposite party No. 2 had paid the amount of Rs. 20,328/- at his Dehradun address. Besides this, the Corporation's Head Office / Corporate Office is at Mumbai and it has its Branch Office at Dehradun. Therefore, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he can file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum's order, thus, suffers from legal infirmity and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
5. The complainant - appellant further argued that the premiums were deducted from his salary by the employer. Now, it was the duty 3 of the employer to remit the same to the insurance company. If some of the premiums were not remitted, then it was the duty of the LIC to ask the employer to remit the same. According to the complainant, so far he was in service, the question of getting the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premiums, does not arise. He also submitted that he had written several letters to LIC in this regard requesting therein to ensure that his premiums were being deposited regularly and if there was any default, his employer be directed to remit such premiums. The complainant has alleged that inspite of these letters, the LIC did not take any action and treating his policy in a lapsed condition since November, 1994, paid an amount of Rs. 20,328/- only as against sum of Rs. 50,000/-, the full maturity value and other benefits like bonus, interest etc.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that the said policy was issued by the Hathras Branch of the LIC, which comes under Agra Divisional Office of the Corporation. For any deficiency in service, the Hathras Branch is answerable directly. So, the Hathras Branch of the LIC is the main opposite party. The territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum is always determined in view of the place of business of the opposite party or its branch office, if any. The Dehradun Branch Office is not a branch office of the Hathras Branch of the LIC and, therefore, the District Forum has rightly observed that it was not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. Learned counsel also submitted that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant at Dehradun. Merely because at present, the complainant is residing in Dehradun and the amount of Rs. 20,328/- was remitted by the LIC at his Dehradun address, it can not be said that part of the cause of action has arisen in Dehradun. The complainant has made all the correspondence in regard to his policy with the Hathras Branch of LIC 4 and the payment has also been made by the said branch and, thus, the cause of action had arisen in Hathras and not in Dehradun. Therefore, from this point of view also, the consumer complaint can not be filed before the District Forum, Dehradun. The learned counsel further submitted that the Corporation had intimated the complainant vide letter dated 14.01.1998 (Paper No. 4kha/10 of the original record) that his policy had been lying in a lapsed condition since November, 1994. He was also advised to get it revived. Inspite of this intimation, the complainant failed to take necessary steps for the revival of the policy and, as such, the Corporation made a payment of Rs. 20,328/- after the maturity date of the policy on the basis of its paid-up value. Thus, the Corporation has not made any deficiency in service.
7. We considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
8. In such cases having similar facts, where the LIC has raised its preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, we have already expressed our view that consumer complaint is not maintainable. (First Appeal No. 88 of 2009; Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Sh. Harish Chandra Joshi, decided on 04.08.2010). We have no reason to deviate from this view because the facts of the complainant's case are almost similar so far as it is concerned with the territorial jurisdiction. Thus, for the reason that a Consumer Fora in Uttarakhand has no territorial jurisdiction to decide this case, we can not express our view on the other issues involved in the consumer complaint. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant - complainant would be at liberty to file the consumer 5 complaint having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K