IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 159/S/2013. DATED : 10.08.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : SMT. RUMA SARKAR,
W/O Sri Manik Sarkar,
Resident of Gossainpur, near Hari Mandir,
P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, Dist.- Darjeeling.
Represented by here constituted attorney,
SRI PANKAJ DEY SARKAR,
S/O S. Dey Sarkar,
Resident of Tarailakya Nagar,Bhihar More,
P.O. & P.S.- Bagdogra, Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD.,
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Pune – 411 006.
2. : THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Saharan House, 2ndFloor, above ICICI Bank,
2nd Mile, Sevoke Raod, Siliguri, P.O.- Sevoke Road,
P.S.- Bhaktinagar, Dist.-Jalpaiguri.
3. : THE DIRECTOR,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Pune – 411 006.
4. : MAHINDRA & MAHIDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES
LTD.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Sandip Chaki, Advocate.
FOR THE OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 : Sri Kanak Lal Kundu, Advocate.
FOR THE OP No. 4 : Sri Milindo Paul, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The whole crux of the complainant case is as follows :-
That complainant purchased a vehicle bearing No.WB-76/7448 met with an accident at Sukna. Kurseong P.S. Case No.47/13 dated 17.03.2013 has been started. The vehicle was released on 04.06.2013 by Ld. A.C.J.M., Kurseong and thereafter the complainant on the next day gave the vehicle to
Contd……..P/2
-:2:-
authorized dealer/ Khokon Motor Works Pvt. Ltd., Matigara. It is also the case of the complainant was vehicle was released on 04.06.2013 and the complainant filed the claim on 09.07.2013. The Insurance Company OP asked the complainant to submit some papers, but those papers were not submitted within given time because of strike at Darjeeling. On 27.08.2013, OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on ground of delay intimation. Therefore, complainant issued a notice to the OP on 25.11.2013. But no reply was received from the OP. Hence, this complaint before this Forum, praying for getting adequate remedy.
The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. It is admitted that Policy No.OG-13-244-1812-00000606 for the period from 27.11.2012 to 26.11.2013 was issued to the complainant for commercial vehicle bearing No. WB-76/7448, subject to terms and conditions therein. It is also stated that the complainant informed the OP on 09.07.2013 i.e., after 114 days from the date of accident. The OP was not informed in anyway till 09.07.2013. Accordingly, the OP repudiated the claim by issuing the letter dated 27.08.2013 showing cogent ground. It is also case of the OP that claim was not settled in favour of the complainant for violation of the falsie terms and condition No.1 on the part of the complainant. It is also case of the OP that cause of action as claimed by the complainant never arose against the OP at any point of time within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of this case on ground of territorial jurisdiction.
OP No.4 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. There is no claim against this OP by the complainant and same may be dismissed against them.
Points for determination
1. Whether the case is maintainable in this Forum or not ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
Contd……..P/3
-:3:-
It appears from the cause title as well as plea taken by the OPs that all OPs situate beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-
(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 [carried 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.
Perused the Notification No.2906-CA/ESTT/O/5C-17/13 dated 07.10.2015 of the Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal, which runs as follows :-
“In exercise of the power conferred by section 9 of the Consumer Protection At, 1986 and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Governor is hereby pleased to prescribe for the purposes of the said Act that the local limits u/s 11 of the Act ibid of District Forum, as specified in column 2 of the table below, shall include the areas as mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 3 of the table below”.
SCHEDULE
Sl. No. | Name of the District Forum | Limits and Jurisdiction |
1 | 2 | 3 |
1. | Siliguri | All the Police Stations in the Siliguri Sub-Division under Darjeeling District. |
Accordingly, the case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the result, the case fails.
Contd……..P/4
-:4:-
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.159/S/2013 is dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -President-
