This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of      Sri. G. Nagaraju, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. Swarna. Ram Babu, Advocate for Opposite parties 1 & 2; and of Sri. M. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate for Opposite party No.3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)

          This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.        The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased TATA Safari Four Wheeler Vehicle from TATA Motors and got it registered vide vehicle bearing No.AP-20-Q-0909 in the year 2007.  The complainant submitted that he got insured his vehicle through opposite party No.1, accordingly a premium amount of Rs.19,875/- paid under various heads, a policy vide bearing No.10004/31/10/003045 issued by opposite party No.2 and it is valid from 15-03-2010 to 14-03-2011.  The complainant further submitted that the vehicle met with an accident on 20-07-2010 at Thotapadu Village of Nandigama Mandal of Krishna District, the vehicle was shifted to the work shop maintained by the opposite party No.3 and the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- as initial amount for repairing purpose vide Receipt No.1094 towards advance amount.  The complainant further submitted that he had submitted the claim form and accordingly the surveyor inspected the vehicle and estimated the extent of damage and came to the conclusion that Rs.3,21,800/- is payable by the insurance company to the opposite party No.3 and the complainant has to pay Rs.1,89,867/- to the opposite party No.3.  The complainant also submitted that the opposite party No.1 and 2 not come forward to settle the claim on one pretext or the other and gave information on 17-06-2011 stating that the claim was rejected without assigning any valid reason which is arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice as such the complainant filed this complaint.

3.        On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A5.

Ex.A1:-Photocopy of letter addressed by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant, dt.31-12-2010.

Ex.A2:-Photocopy of representation made by the complainant to the opposite party No.2, dt.18-01-2011 along with courier receipt.

Ex.A3:-Photocopy of claim cost confirmation report issued by G. Srinivasa Rao, Surveyor.

Ex.A4:-Cash Receipt No.1094, dt. 20-08-2010 issued by opposite party No.3.

Ex.A5:-Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.

Ex.A6:-Photocopy of Driving License.

Ex.A7:-Receipt No.867, dt. 12-06-2013 for Rs.10,500/-.

Ex.A8:-Receipt No.490, dt. 10-05-2013 for Rs.3,50,000/-.

Ex.A9:-Invoice No.JASP V i-Jeevan-R-1011-16895, dt. 31-03-2011.

Ex.A10:- Motor Vehicle Cover Note No.296674, dt.15-03-2010 issued by the opposite party No.1.

Ex.A11:-Certified cum policy schedule, policy No.10004/31/10/003045, dt. 15-03-2010.

Ex.A12:-letter addressed by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant dt. 17-06-2011.

4.        On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No. 2 appeared through their council and filed counter.  In their counter the opposite parties No 2 admitted about the purchase of vehicle by the complainant, issuance of the policy and submission of claim bearing No.22262.  The opposite parties No. 2 also submitted that the complainant intimated the accident to the opposite party No.2 was delayed for 10 days, though they requested the complainant to furnish the reasons for delay, they appointed Libra Surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle in the accident, the surveyor visited the spot and repair shop, assessed the loss and the surveyor submitted report as the net loss assessed to a tune of Rs.2,67,991.25 and estimated loss is Rs.10,83,226/-.  The opposite parties No. 2 further submitted that they issued a letter to the complainant on 31-10-2010 and requested the complainant to dismantal the vehicle and stop the repairs, on 20-01-2011 addressed another letter to the complainant and informed that the surveyor was unable to assess the loss because the complainant not dismantaled the vehicle.  The opposite party No.2 further submitted that there is no deficiency on their part, the complainant is failed to follow the norms and conditions of the company, the complainant suppressed the material, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       On behalf of the opposite party No.2 the followed documents are filed and marked as Exhibits B1 and B2.

Ex.B1:-Photocopy of Letter addressed by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant dt. 31-12-2010.

Ex.B2:-Photocopy of policy wording (terms and conditions).

6.       Complainant and opposite party No.2 filed Written arguments.

7.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

8.       Upon perusing the material available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether this Forum is having Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

Point:-

In this case the complainant had purchased TATA Safari four wheeler vehicle from TATA Motors and the complainant got insured the same through opposite party No.1, the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance company, near Vinayaka theatre, Eluru Road, Vijayawada and the same was approved by the opposite party No.2 and accordingly the opposite party No.2 had issued policy vide bearing No. 10004/31/10/003045 and it is valid from 15-03-2010 to 14-03-2011.  According to the complainant the vehicle met with an accident on 20-07-2010 at Thotapadu Village of Nandigama Mandal of Krishna District, the vehicle was shifted to the work shop maintained by the opposite party No.3 at Vijayawada and the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- as initial amount for repairing purpose vide Receipt No.1094 towards advance amount.  According to the complainant, he submitted the claim No.22262, accordingly the company surveyor inspected the vehicle, assessed the loss and came to the conclusion that a final amount of Rs.3,21,800/- is payable by the insurance company to the opposite party No.3 and the complainant has to pay Rs.1,89,867/- to the opposite party No.3 subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant is ready to pay the said amount.  According to the complainant on 17-06-2011 the complainant received information from the opposite party No.2 that the claim was rejected without assigning any valid reason which is arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice as such the complainant approached this Forum.

From the documents and material available on record, we observed that the complainant insured his vehicle at Vijayawada and the vehicle met with an accident at Thotapadu Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company reported in CDJ 2009 SC 1916, held that “When no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the insurance office in the matter relating to fire insurance policy, the complainant has to be filed within the jurisdiction of the District Forum wherein, the Branch Office of the Insurance company which had issued the insurance policy”.  In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this case.   Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant shall approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance. 

In the result, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.  The time consumed during the pendency of this complaint in this Forum can be saved from the period of limitation.  Accordingly, this complaint is disposed off.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2016.   

        FAC PRESIDENT                       MEMBER

   DISTRICT CONSUEMR FORUM, KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.