BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.125 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.70 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM KADAPA YSR DISTRICT
Between:
M.Venkataiah Naidu S/o M.Venkata Swamy Naidu
aged 65 years, Occ: Business R/o 54/1, Kadiri Road
Kothapeta, Rayachoty Town, Kadapa District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Bajaj Allianz General Ins.Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its General Manager, Head Office
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerrawada, Pune-006
2. The Bajaj Allianz General Ins.Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager, East Plaza, II Floor
3-6-111/8, Street-18, Main Road
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-029
3. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager,1st Floor, Dwaraka Complex
Near 7 Road, Kadapa
4. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager, near RTC Bus Stand
Kadapa, YSR District Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants M/s J.Seshagiri Rao
Counsel for the Respondents M/s Naresh Byrapaneni(R1toR3)
M/s V.Narasimha Rao(R4)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District forum whereby the appellant’s complaint was dismissed on the premise that the insurance policy was obtained for commercial purpose and the appellant had sold the vehicle without effecting transfer of the insurance policy in favour of the purchaser.
2. The appellant is the owner of the Lorry bearing No.KA -34-5733 which was insured with the third respondent insurance company under insurance policy bearing No.611500/31/03/02000 for a sum of Rs.6 lakh for one year commencing from 16.06.2010 till 15.06.2011. On 28.5.2011 the vehicle met with accident while it was proceeding with sand from Dargipalli to Rayachoti and on Kadapa-Rayachoti road a lorry bearing number KA-25B-3184 came from Kadapa side and dashed it from behind as a result of which the vehicle sustained heavy damage. The driver and cleaner of the appellant’s lorry were died in the accident. The Police, Sidhout registered a case in crime number 62 of 2011.
3. The complainant informed the third respondent insurance company and it had deputed a surveyor. The appellant submitted claim form with relevant documents and the respondents no.1 to 3 repudiated the claim on the ground that as per the RC of the vehicle Mahaboob Basha is the owner of the vehicle and the insurance policy stands in the name of the appellant.
4. The respondents no.1 and 2 resisted the case contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The third respondent issued insurance policy for the vehicle for the period from 16.06.2011 to 15.06.2011 in favour of the appellant and he sold the vehicle to S.Mahaboob Basha on 19.07.2010 for consideration of Rs.8,76,028/- and after receiving a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the same day he entered into agreement with Mohaboob Bash and handed over possession of the vehicle to him. Mohaboob Basha agreed to bear future disputes in respect of the vehicle from 19.07.2010 and furnished copy of agreement to the investigator of the respondent no.2
5. The appellant or the purchaser of the vehicle did not inform the transfer to the respondent no.1 and 2 to get the policy transferred in the name of the purchaser. The transfer of the ownership of the vehicle was effected prior to the date of accident. The purchaser has to apply for transfer of insurance policy by submitting No objection certificate from the appellant and paying the required charges. Moahaboob Basha gave in writing to the third respondent that he is the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. The respondents no.1 and 2 have no branch office in Kadapa and the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, the Senior Executive Legal of the respondent insurance company had filed his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B5.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed the appeal contending that he is the owner of the vehicle and obtained insurance policy from the respondents in his favour and that the appellant has not sold the vehicle to Mahaboob Basha. It is contended that the appellant is still due the loan amount payable to the respondent no.4.
8. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the District Forum, Kadapa has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to the amount sought for from the respondents no.1 to 3?
iii) To what relief?
9. POINT NO.1: The appellant is the owner of the Lorry bearing number KA-34-5733 which was purchased on finance extended by the fourth respondent. The appellant obtained insurance policy from the respondents no.1 and 2 for the Lorry. The lorry met with an accident on 28.05.2011 when it was proceeding on Kadapa-Rayachoti road as another lorry collided against it resulting in death of the driver and cleaner of the appellant and damage to the lorry. The appellant lodged claim with the respondents no.1and 2 and they repudiated the claim on the premise that the appellant transferred ownership of the lorry in favour of Mohaboob Pasha and he or the purchaser had not taken steps for transfer of the policy in favour of the purchaser.
10. The appellant filed complaint before the District Forum, Kadapa on the premise that the third respondent is branch office of the respondents and the third respondent has been carrying its business at Kadapa. The respondents no.1 and 2 had denied of having any branch office at Kadapa. The District Forum has recorded finding that the appellant had not proved that the respondents no.1 and 2 had branch office at Kadapa. Yet, the District Forum proceeded to decide the matter. Having given finding that the respondents no.1 and 2 had no branch office at Kadapa and it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the District Forum ought not to have decided the complaint.
11. The appellant showing the respondents no.1 and 2 carrying on its business at Kadapa filed the complaint before the District Forum, Kadapa. The opposite party having branch offices at different places in the state of Andhra Pradesh by itself would not confer jurisdiction on the District Forum where the branch office of the opposite party carries on its business.
Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act stipulates territorial jurisdiction of District Forum and it reads as under:
(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.
12. The Consumer Protection Act provides territorial jurisdiction to the place where the respondents are residing or where case of action has arisen. The District Forum has erroneously proceeded to decide the matter though it held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent issued the insurance policy at the first instance and later the instant insurance policy which is the renewal of the earlier insurance policy.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.,” reported in (2010) 1 SCC 135 held that the expression ‘branch office’ in Section 17(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen but not each and every branch office of opposite party wherever it is situated. It was somewhat a similar case where insurance policy was taken at Ambala but the claim for compensation was made at Chandigarh contending that the respondent has a branch office at Chandigarh, hence complaint could be filed at Chandigarh. The Apex Court observed that :
“The Supreme Court, further dealing the concept of Article 226(2) and relying on the decision of ONGC (1994 AIR SCW 3287), explained the concept of cause of action in para 17 at page 130 of the report and the relevant extracts wherefrom are excerpted below :
“It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.”
14. In the light of the ratio laid in the aforementioned decision the District Forum at Kadapa has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint,the District Forum could have returned the complaint with liberty to the complainant present it before the forum having jurisdiction in the matter.
15. POINTS NOs.2 & 3: In view of finding that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, there need be no discussion under these points.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to return the complaint to the complainant and on receipt of it, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.21.02.2013
KMK*
