ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

This is complainant’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 402 of 2010.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.

2          Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Sh. Shamshad Ali is the registered owner of the vehicle named Mahindra Tractor bearing registration           No. UK08-L-5470.  He took insurance from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 3,95,000/-, for which he paid              Rs. 6,262/- to the insurance company and the insurance was valid from 03.12.2009 to 02.12.2010.  The insurance was taken through a local agent of the insurance company at Haridwar.  According to the complainant, unfortunately on 26.12.2009 the said insured vehicle met an accident while he was going to his home.  Thereafter, the surveyor surveyed the said vehicle on the spot.  The surveyor advised the complainant to take his vehicle to the authorized service center of Mahindra Company at Bharat Diesel for repairing and he was assured that the insurance company will pay the repair charges to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant took his vehicle to the authorized service center of Mahindra Company and repaired the same with a total cost of Rs. 60,000/-.  He lodged the claim with the insurance company for the said amount, which was paid by him to the authorized service center.  The insurance company told the complainant that all the papers related to his claim have been lost and said to the complainant to provide fresh papers. Till further order, the complainant has paid repair charges on his own.  The complainant again asked the insurance company about his claim, but the insurance company informed him that his claim is still unsettled. The complainant sent reminders to the opposite parties-insurance company, but all vent in vain.  The complainant was not informed that his claim has been repudiated. This fact came to the complainant’s knowledge in the month of November, 2010, when the bank informed him about repudiation of claim. The complainant alleged that no information about the repudiation of his claim was given to him by the insurance company.  Due to deficiency in service on the part of insurance company, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Haridwar.

3.       The insurance company has submitted in its written statement that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum for having been presented on wrong facts and false grounds.  The answering opposite parties denied that the claim had never been lodged with the answering opposite parties, as no intimation of whatever nature had ever been delivered by the complainant.  In the written statement, the answering opposite parties have admitted that they have insured the tractor registered No. UK08-L-5470 vide policy No. OG-10-1301-5001-00001792 as product Farmer’s Package in the name of Mr. Shamshad Hussain having validity from 03.12.2009 to 02.12.2010.  In additional pleas, the answering opposite parties pleaded that the complainant has no cause of action to file present complaint, which is not maintainable legally on account of complainant not intimating alleged loss, which sets in motion the process of verifying the authenticity of claim and assessing the loss to indemnify insured of actual loss suffered by it.  The District Forum has no jurisdiction to admit the present complaint on account of the fact that against whom the complaint is made, was not allowed to take decision, therefore, the District Forum cannot sit over the judgment whether decision taken by answering opposite parties, was right or wrong.  The answering opposite parties are liable to indemnify its insured under contractual liability only if insured comply with terms and conditions of contract of insurance which in present case, the complainant has utterly failed primarily for not intimating the date of loss to answering opposite parties.  The opposite parties have never been deficient in rendering their services to complainant. It is rather complainant himself who did not fulfill requisite formalities like intimating claim in question rendering the process of settlement of claim impossible. 

4.       The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.02.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case.  In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the District Forum has simply gone through the averments made by the opposite parties-insurance company and has not taken into consideration the submissions raised by the complainant-appellant. The appellant further stated that the District Forum has not considered the territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the consumer complaint.  The appellant further stated that the consumer complaint is not beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum.  The District Forum without any evidence has found that the present consumer complaint was beyond its jurisdiction, while the complainant has specifically mentioned in para No. 2 of the consumer complaint, that on the advice of Bank Manager, the complainant took the insurance policy through the local agent of the insurance company. The judgment of the District Forum is based on presumption that whether the insurance has taken or not?  The District Forum has not perused the evidence on record produced by the complainant-appellant. He further argued that the judgment is very controversial, as it is stated in the judgment of the District Forum that it is suspected either the insurance exist or not.

7.       It was argued by the learned counsel for respondents-insurance company that the District Forum has stated in its judgment that the insured had paid Rs. 6,262/- through local agent, is not evident by the complainant, so territorial jurisdiction does not exist at District Haridwar.  Learned counsel for respondents has also requested to remand back the said case to the District Forum, Haridwar.

8.       After perusal of the record and evidence, it is evident that the policy No. OG-10-1301-5001-00001792 was existed from 03.12.2009 to 02.12.2010. Certificate-cum-policy schedule was issued on 18.12.2009 (paper No. 18/3 on the District Forum’s record). An affidavit of               Sh. Shamsad Ali-complainant has been filed, where he submitted that he took the insurance policy through local agent of insurance company        Mr. Ashutosh Mathur on advice of loanee bank manager and paid            Rs. 6,262/-.  After receiving this amount, a cover note No. BZ0802605405 was issued to the complainant-appellant and he was assured that the insurance policy will be issued to him, which he had not received till the date of filing affidavit.  Driving license of Sh. Riyaz Ali is filed on paper No. 1/13 on the District Forum’s record. The repudiation letter of the insurance company is filed on paper No. 24, where the insurance company has stated that on verification of the driving license of the driver Mr. Riyaz Ali S/o Sh. Vajir Ali it was established that the D/L was not valid and effective to drive particular class of vehicle at the time of accident.  Later on U.P. Gramin Bank has also informed the insured-complainant that his claim has been repudiated by the insurance company, as the driving license was not valid and effective (paper No. 25). An affidavit of Sh. Shreyas Thakur, Executive (Legal) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. is filed on paper No. 18/1 on the District Forum’s record. 

9.       There is no dispute regarding the insurance, but the only dispute is regarding the territorial jurisdiction, as the District Forum has raised the question about maintainability of the consumer complaint at District Forum, Haridwar. The issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction is beyond pleadings, because the respondents have not written a single line about territorial jurisdiction in their written statement.  They clearly did not oppose about taking insurance through their local agent, from whom the complainant has taken the policy, as the appellant alleged in his complaint, so it is true that no person will take insurance beyond its working place. It can very well be said that the respondents are working for gain at District Haridwar.  The impugned judgment and order of the District Forum is not sustainable for the reasons, i.e. based on assumption that whether the policy is issued or not.  The aforesaid assumption of the District Forum is unfounded for the reasons that there is no evidence on record that shows that the complainant has paid any amount for insurance.  In a result, we are of the view that the judgment passed by the District Forum challenging the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum does not bear any merit and same is liable to be quashed.  It appears that the District Forum has not perused the papers properly. As the insurance company has repudiated the insurance claim on invalid driving license, which the District Forum has not mentioned in their judgment.  They focused only on territorial jurisdiction, which was not pleaded by the respondents. There is no illegality in the appellant’s driving license because the insured was using the vehicle for his own use not for any commercial activity and he had a valid and effective driving license which was valid from 17.12.2009 to 16.12.2029 for non-transport vehicle. The respondents also admitted that the appellant has taken insurance policy as Farmer’s Package in the name of Sh. Shamsad Hussain for his tractor bearing registration No. UK08-L-5470.    

10.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside. The insurance company is directed to pay to the complainant-appellant Rs. 46,000/- as repairing charges and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, failing which the insurance company shall also pay to the complainant-appellant a simple interest @ 8% per annum on the above mentioned amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment.  No order as to costs.