BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
CC No.74 OF 2011
Between :
Mr.Mohammed Hifzur Rahman
H.No.14-8-74/A, Charbowli
Warangal
Complainant
A N D
1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Regional Manager,
United India Towers, 3-5-817 & 818
Old MLA Quarters Road, Basheerbagh
Hyderabad-029
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Rajmal Complex
2nd Floor, Kamptee Line
Rajnandgaon (CG)
3. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager, Jeypore(CKL)
Division
Opposite parties
CC No.75 OF 2011
Between :
Mr.Mohammed Ziyauddin
H.No.11-23-1185/A, L.B.Nagar
Warangal Complainant
A N D
1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Regional Manager,
United India Towers, 3-5-817 & 818
Old MLA Quarters Road, Basheerbagh
Hyderabad-029
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
rep. by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Rajmal Complex
2nd Floor, Kamptee Line
Rajnandgaon (CG)
3. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager, Jeypore(CKL)
Division
Opposite parties
Counsel for the Petitioners M/s V.J.Rakesh Babu
Counsel for the respondent M/s V.Srinivasa Rao (OP1&2)
M/s M.Ramgopal Reddy(OP3)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble I/c President.)
***
1. Since both these complaints bear similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order. C.C.No.74 of 2011 is taken as lead case.
2. The complaint is filed claiming a sum of `47,93,473/- towards loss of insured beedi leaves and an amount of `34,74,939/-towards interest thereon as also a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards punitive damages, a total amount of `87,68,412/-.
3. The averments of the complaints are that the complainant is proprietor of the firm dealing in the business of beedi leaves. The complainant submitted that the administrative office of the complainant-firm is at Warangal and the complainant is participating in auction conducted by the Forest Department of various states in the country for collecting Kendu/Tandu/Beedi Leaves. The branch office of the first opposite party-insurance company, viz., the second opposite party doing the insurance business at Ranjadgaon issued insurance policy bearing number 190507/121/07/11/00000033 providing insurance cover to the stock of Kendu/Tandu/Beedi Leaves of the complainant stored at in OFDC, Godown No. 1 to 4, situate at Post MV 17, District Malkangiri. for the period of one year from 01.05.2007 to 30.04.2008. The insurance policy was issued jointly in the name of the complainant and D.M.(CKL) Jeypore for a sum of `46,28,800/-
4. The complainant submitted that of the 15 Godowns, the OFDC allotted Godown Nos. 1 to 4 to the complainant and Godown Nos. 5 to 15 to the complainant’s cousin, Ziyauddin who obtained insurance policy for stock of Kendu/Tandu/Beedi Leaves stored in the Godown Nos. 5 to 15 and in all the Godowns the complainant’s family stored Kendu/Tandu/Beedi Leaves. The complainant collected Kendu Lealves on 4.06.2007 and funished details such as bag number, Godown number to the administrative office of the complainant and the variation in the storage location was intimated thorugh letter dated 5.06.2007 to the opposite party no.2-insurance company.
5. The complainant submitted that at 11.45 PM on 5.06.2007 some miscreants had set fire to the Godowns where the Kendu Leaves were stored and the stocks and Godowns were gutted in the fire. The complainant reported the incident to the Police and Fire Station, Malkangiri and the Fire brigade could not the stocks. The complainant informed the opposite party-insurance company about the incident and the opposite party no.2 deputed surveyor, Bipin Bihari who visited the spot and confirmed the loss and the opposite party no.2 appointed final surveyor, M/s Manmal Kasliwal & sons, S.K.kansal, Indore who assessed the loss `47,93,473/- and submitted their report to the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
6. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have not made account payment and repudiated the claim on 31.07.2009. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had not sent any communication to the administrative office of the complainant in regard to effecting the change in storage location and the complainant believed that amendment required in respect of lot numbers and godown numbers for storage was made in the insurance policy by the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
7. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 resisted the claim on the premise that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and that on receiving the information about the fire accident to the stocks, it deputed surveyor for preliminary as also for final survey and the final surveyor submitted their report assessing the loss to the stocks at Rs.46,18,578/- The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 submitted that the complainant had not made any request to carry out amendment in the insurance policy of the change in storage location of the beedi leaves. The letter dated 5.06.2007 addressed to the opposite party no.2 is an intimation of storage of beedi leaves in the Godown No. 1 to 15 belonging to the complainant and Ziauddin.
8. The opposite parties submitted that the loss sustained to the stocks of the complainant is out of preview of the terms of the insurance policy. The action of repudiation of the claim proper is fair and valid and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in repudiating the claim submitted by the complainant. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The opposite party no.3 equally resisted the case contending that the complainant’s address as per the agreement is M/s Mohd. Hifz-ur-Rahaman, LB Nagar PO/Dist Warangal whereas in the cause title it is mentioned as Mohammed Hifzur Rahaman, 14-8-74/A, Charbowli, Warangal. As per the agreement the insurance cover taken by the complainant covers the amount due against the complainant at any time. The complainant purchased Lot No.26 in the tender sale held on 29.11.2006 at Bhubaneswar and to the effect an agreement was executed on 21.12.2006. As per the agreement the complainant was allowed to store the Kendu leaf in the Forest Department CG Complex of MV 17 in Godown Nos.1 to 4. The complainant stored his stock in Godown Nos.13, 14 and 15 as per his convenience. The complainant had covered the stock under the insurance policy No.190507/121/07/1100000033 for the period from 1.5.2007 to 30.4.2008 for an amount of `46,28,800/- in the joint name of DM, OFDC Ltd., and the complainant as per clause 6.5 of the agreement.
10. It is submitted that another complainant in C.C.No.75 of 2011, Md.Ziyauddin who had purchased Lot Nos.38, 39 and 40 in the tender sale dated 29.11.2006 who was allowed to store their Kenduleaf stock in the CG NO.5 to 15. There is no information about the relationship between Mr.Ifzur Rahaman and Md. Ziyauddin and the office cannot say that whether entire 15 Nos. of godowns at MV 17 were occupied by one family. As per the records the complainant stored stock of Lot No.26 in CG No.13, 14 and 15 containing Actual Bags at his own convenience located at MV 17 District Malkangiri and without the knowledge of the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 has no knowledge about the intimation for change of godowns.
11. The opposite party no.3 submitted that the accident took place in the night of 5.6.2007 at MV-17 Kenduleaf Godowns and caused damage to the Kenduleaf stock of Lot No.26 and after the incident FIAR was lodged with IIC, Malkangiri by the complainant. The other three lots were also damaged in the same fire accident. The opposite party have no knowledge about the appointment of Mr.Bipin Bhiar Patra visited the fire accident place and the opposite party no.3 has not been intimated either by the complainant or by other two opposite parties. that one Sri S.K.Kansal of Indore was appointed as Surveyor for investigation to assess the quantum of loss. The opposite party no.3 had put in all efforts and made correspondence with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for early settlement of the claim for damage caused to Lot no.26. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had taken two years for settlement of the claim and finally they repudiated the claim in respect of the Lot No.26 vide letter dated 31.7.3009.
12. The complainant has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A10 and on behalf of the opposite parties, the Regional Manager of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the Divisional Manager of the opposite party no.3 have filed their respective affidavits and the documents, Exs.B1 to B7.
13. The points for consideration are :
i) Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
iii) To what relief?
14. POINT NO.1: The complainant is proprietor of the Firm which is engaged in the business dealing with Kendu/Tandu/Beedi Leaves. M/s D.M.(CKL), Jeypore and the complainant jointly obtained “standard Fire and Special Perils Policy’ bearing number No.190507/121/07/1100000033 for the period from 1.5.2007 to 30.4.2008 for an amount of Rs.46,28,800/- in the joint name of DM, OFDC Ltd., and complainant as per clause 6.5 of the agreement for covering risk on’ Beedi Leaves of Category 1, stocks stored in Gunny bags of Lot No.26, Potteru of Jaypore Division(KL)’ and the property was situate at OFDC Godown No. 1704, Post MV 17, District Malkangiri. The complainant obtained the insurance policy along with M/s D.M.(CKL) Jeypore which is not made party to the proceedings.
15. The Consumer Protection Act prescribes territorial limits for institution of complaint in State Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party resides or the cause of action arises. Section 17 of the Act reads as under:
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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 State Commission 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.
16. 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.”
17. The second opposite party is the branch office of the first opposite party insurance company. The second opposite party has been doing its insurance business at Rajnandgaon district in Orissa State. The insured stocks were situated in Malkangiri district of Orissa State. The fire accident is stated to have occurred and the Beedi leaves are stated to have been damaged at the Godown in Malkangiri district. As such , the cause of action occurred in Orissa. The second opposite party which issued the insurance policy is doing the insurance business within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, Orissa. Thus, the State Commission, Orissa has territorial jurisdiction to try the matter.
18. In the light of the ratio laid in the aforementioned decision, the State Commission within whose jurisdiction the branch office of the insurance company issued the insurance policy, alone has to entertain the complaint. As such, this Commission is of the considered view that the complaint is to be returned to the complainant to enable the complainant to submit it with appropriate State Commission.
19. In the result, the complaints CC No.74 and 75 of 2011 are directed to be returned to the complainants to present in appropriate State Commission. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.19.11.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
C.C.No.74 of 2011
For complainant
Ex A-1 Letter of Claim repudiation from insurance Company dated 31.7.2009
Ex A-2 Letter of change of go-down address dated 30.5.2000
Ex A-3 Letter for change of go-down numbers dated 5.6.2007
Ex A-4 Certificate of posting dated 5.6.2007
Ex A-5 Claim petition dated 13.6.2007
Ex A-6 Fire Certificate dated 25.9.2007
Ex A-7 Letter to Branch manager United India Assurance dated
25.6.2007
Ex A-8 FIR PS Malkangiri dated 6.6.2007
Ex A-9 Insurance Investigator report dated 10.01.2009
Ex A-10 Insurance Policy No. 190507/11/07/11/00000033
For opposite parties
Ex B-1 Intimation in respect of repudiation
Ex B-2 Plan showing the in respect of Godown-MV-17
Ex B-3 Surveyors report
ExB-4 Letter dated 25.8.2009 of OFDC
ExB-5 Copy of Insurance Policy.
Ex B-6 Purchasers Agreement with letters
Ex B-7 Letter of OFDC ltd to the Divisional Manager, Jeypore, OFDC
Ltd.
C.C.No.75 of 2011
Ex A-1 Letter dated 23.9.2009 from Divil. Manager, OFDC
Ex A-2 Letter of change of go-down address dated 30.5.2000
Ex A-3 Letter for change of go-down numbers dated 5.6.2007
Ex A-4 Certificate of posting dated 5.6.2007
Ex A-5 Claim petition dated 13.6.2007
Ex A-6 Fire Certificate dated 25.9.2007
Ex A-7 Letter to Branch manager United India Insurance dated
25.6.2007
Ex A-8 Letter dated 25.6.2007 to Branch manager, United India
Insurance Co ltd. Of Policy no.190507/11/07/11/00000049
Ex A-9 Letter dated 25.6.2007 to Branch manager, United India Insurance Co ltd. Of Policy no.190507/11/07/11/00000050
Ex A-10 Copy of FIR of PS Malkangiri
Ex A-11 Mr. SiSir Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Investigator, United India Insurance Co ltd, Jeypore.
ExA-12 Copy of Policy No. 190507/11/07/11/00000048
ExA-13 Copy of Policy No. 190507/11/07/11/00000049
ExA-14 Copy of Policy No. 190507/11/07/11/00000050
For opposite parties
Ex B-1 Agreement copy dated 26.12.2007
Ex B-2 Allotment letter dated 19.2.2007
Ex B-3 Claim letter dated 13.6.2007
ExB-4 FIR Copy dated 6.6.2007
Ex B-5 Letter of United India Insurance Co Ltd dated 15,.6.2007 to
Sri SK Kansal
Ex B-6 Letter of Divisional manager, Jeypore (CKL )Division dated
11.6.2009
ExB-7 Letter of Divisional Manager, Jeypore (CKL) Divin) dated
24.4.2008
Ex B-8 OFDC Ltd letter to Regional manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd Dated 5.8.2008
Ex B-9 Repudiation letter dated 31.7.2009.
Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
