The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to entertain and decide the complaints due to the complicated and serious question of fraud involved in the matter.

ORDER

M.T. Unadkat, Member (Judicial). - All the appeals bear common question of law and facts and therefore ordered to be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants nos. 1 and 2/original opponents nos. 3 and 4 have challenged the order passed by the learned District Forum, Rajkot (Main ) in complaints no. 80 of 2013 to 101 of 2013. For the sake convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainants and the opponents.

3. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.

4. Considering the facts of the case, evidence on record and the contentions raised by the opponent insurance company as regards the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum to entertain the complainants and the judgment of the learned District Forum, it is necessary to decide whether the complaint under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of convenience) is maintainable or not Advocate for the parties are heard on the point of jurisdiction as regards the maintainability of the complaints under the said Act.

5. Considering the pleadings, evidence and the judgment of the learned District Forum, following aspects are not in dispute.

(i) All the complainants are family members and running business in different names at Jetpur, District Rajkot.

(ii) The opponent no.1 Mayur Vajubhai Pipalia is the agent of the insurance company opponent no.4. He is related to all the complainants.

(iii) The opponents nos. 2 and 3 are the officers of the insurance company. The opponent no.4 is the insurance company having its Registered Office at Goregoan, Mumbai.

(iv) The complainants have given 22 cheques to the insurance company for insurance policies for different members of the family on 26.12.2011.

(v) The complainants have submitted proposal form for 22 insurance policies on 27-12-2011.

(vi) Over and above, two other persons have also given cheque by way of premium for insurance policy to the opponent no.4 on 26-12- 2011.The insurance company has issued insurance policy on the basis of the proposal form submitted by them. They have not raised any objection against the insurance policy.

(vii) The insurance company has issued insurance policies to all the 22 complainants on 6-1-2012.

(viii) All the complainants have received insurance policy on or about 6.1.2012.

(ix) All the complainants have raised written objection against the insurance policy by a letter dated 5-4-2012 and thereafter on 18- 4-2012.

(x) The complainants requested the insurance company by a letter dated 5-4-2012 to cancel all the insurance policies on the ground that it was not as per the understanding between the parties and the proposal form.

(xi) The insurance company by a letter dated 18-4-2012 intimated to the complainants that request of the cancellation of the insurance policies is not received within fifteen days of the receipt of the insurance policy and therefore, it cannot be accepted.

(xii) The complainants have filed consumer complaint before the learned District Forum that officers of the insurance company has exercised force and misrepresentation. All the complainants were given to understand that this is a single premium policy. They have not to pay premium thereafter. However, the officers of the insurance company by exercising fraud issued insurance policy for different period and thereafter claimed premium for subsequent year. The complainants are not liable to pay any amount by way of premium.

(xiii) The insurance company was served with the notice. The insurance company raised contention about the jurisdiction and contended that the policies are issued as per the proposal form submitted by the complainants. It is further contended that the opponent no.2, agent of the insurance company, is the family member of the complainants and a sum of Rs. 2,45,919/-are paid by way of commission to him. Request letter to cancel the polic