Haryana

StateCommission

A/1228/2016

DR.YOGESH MOHINDRU - Complainant(s)

Versus

AB CARZ PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL KHUNGER

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1228 of 2016

Date of Institution:        16.12.2016

Date of Decision :         21.12.2016

 

Dr. Yogesh Mohindru c/o Mohindru Hospital Shahbad Markanda, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Bhagat Authorised Car Dealer, AB Carz Private Limited C-19, Industrial Area-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

2.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai.

3.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, Triloki Chambers, 1^st Floor SCO 4307/4/21, Opposite Municipal Council, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sahil Khunger, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Dr. Yogesh Mohindru-complainant, has filed the present appeal against the order dated 3^rd November, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, however, liberty was given to the complainant to file complaint before the competent Court having jurisdiction, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Volvo S-80 car bearing registration No.CH-01-AF-0102 on 26^th November, 2010 from Bhagat Authorised Car Dealer, Mohali, Punjab – Opposite Party No.1. The car was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.2. The complainant noticed that there was defect in the music system of the car. So, the car was taken to the dealer of the opposite party No.1 who approached the opposite party No.2. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor. The surveyor assured to submit favourable report; however claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. By filing the instant complaint the complainant challenged the repudiation of his claim and sought compensation of Rs.90,000/- besides Rs.1.00 lac for harassment and litigation expenses.

3.                Notice being issued, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 – Insurance Company filed written version raising plea that the District Forum, Ambala has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. However, the opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Hence appeal.

5.                Undisputedly as per the Insurance Policy, the complainant has shown his residence of Chandigarh. The Insurance Policy was issued by the Insurance Company based at Mumbai. Though the complainant in his complaint alleged that he is running a hospital at Shahbad Markanda and also mentioned that the defect developed in the music system within the area of Shahbad Markanda, however, filed complaint before the District Forum, Ambala stating that one of the offices of the Insurance Company is situated at Ambala.

6.                Neither the complainant is resident of a place within the territorial jurisdiction of Ambala nor the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of Ambala, as the defect alleged to have developed at Shahbad Markanda, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Kurukshetra. Repair of the music system was carried out at Mohali. The Insurance policy was issued at Mumbai. Merely because one of the branch offices of the opposite party No.2 is located at Ambala, would not confer jurisdiction upon the District Forum, Ambala to entertain and try the complaint. Branch Office has to be related with the cause of action. This is one of the cases of bench hunting. Complaint cannot be filed at a place whimsical and suiting the complainant.

7.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. – IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), held as under:-

“Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at  6Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position enunciated above, it is held that the District Forum, Ambala has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. No ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum is made out.

9.                Hence, the appeal fails. it is dismissed.

 

Announced: 21.12.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL