BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.291 of 2016                                                                          

                                                       Date of Institution         :    31.10.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :   27.12.2017.

Janak Raj son of Shri Honshi Ram, resident of Gali Arora Sunaro Wali, Surat Garia Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                               ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

Chola MS General Insurance Company, SCO-338, Basement, Canara Bank ATM, Mugal Canal, Karnal- 132001, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 ...…Opposite party.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L. AHUJA …………..PRESIDENT

  SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ……..MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Rakesh Kashnia, proxy counsel for Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party.

 ORDER

                   The case of complainant in brief is that complainant is the registered owner of i20 car No.HR-24S-4821 which was insured with the opposite party vide package policy no.3362/01172327/000/00 w.e.f. 18.4.2016 to 17.4.2016 (actually 17.4.2017 as is evident from copy of policy) and the IDV of the said car was declared as Rs.5,50,000/-. That the complainant was enjoying no claim bonus also. It is further averred that the aforesaid car met with an accident on 14.5.2016 while coming from Jaipur to Sirsa and a case FIR No.71 dated 26.5.2016 was registered in Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu (Rajasthan). The complainant gave information to the agent of op company at Sirsa as there is no office of op company at Sirsa and the agent assured to get the claim passed and asked the complainant to get the car on sapurdari and to bring the same at Sirsa and to send it to the showroom. It is further averred that car was given to the complainant on sapurdari by the Court on 31.5.2016 and thereafter the car was brought to Sirsa. However, the car was brought to Raja Hyundai showroom Sirsa on 9.6.2016 as the complainant remained busy in taking care of the persons injured in the accident and has gone out of station. It is further averred that Raja Hyundai showroom again informed the opposite party/ company which appointed Mr. Sohan Swami Surveyor and Loss Assessor. That all the requisite documents i.e. registration certificate, copy of insurance, bills, estimate etc. were handed over to the Surveyor but the op company did not settle the claim inspite of repeated requests and as such the complainant got served a legal notice for the settlement of the claim to the op on 17.8.2016. That vide letter dated 15.9.2016, the op company for the time has responded and has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that in case of theft and criminal act, which may be subject of the claim under the policy has to be reported to the company immediately and that as the information has been given belatedly on 13.6.2016, so the claim is hereby repudiated. It is further averred that repudiation of the genuine claim of the complainant by op company is totally misconceived against the insurance norms and the rules as enunciated under the IRDA rules and guidelines. That the complainant had immediately informed the agent of the company. That the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,45,122/- which has been paid to Raja Hyundai, Sirsa including purchase of tyre of Rs.4200/- which has been purchased from outside. That the conduct of the opposite party for wrongly withholding the claim of the complainant falls under the deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppal, cause of action and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that op has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 15.9.2016 on the ground that there is delay of 30 days in giving the notice to the company about the accident whereas condition no.1 of the Insurance Policy speaks of immediate notice to the company. Therefore, the op is not liable to settle the claim of the complainant because the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Both the parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.    

5.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has produced documents i.e. copy of repudiation letter dated 15.9.2016 Ex.C2, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C3, copy of DL Ex.C4, copy of RC Ex.C5, copy of order dated 31.5.2016 Ex.C6, copy of receipt Ex.C7, copy of bill of Vishal Tyre Centre Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, postal receipt Ex.C10 and copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C11. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. Satyabratta Das, Assistant Legal Manager as Ex.R1, copy of repudiation letter dated 15.9.2016 Ex.R2, copy of repudiation note Ex.R3, copy of motor final survey report Ex.R4 and copy of application of complainant as Ex.R5.

6.                The perusal of the insurance policy cover note Ex.C3 reveals that the policy was issued by Karnal Branch Office of the opposite party and the claim was also lodged by the complainant with the opposite party at Karnal office and the copy of legal notice Ex.C9 also reveals that legal notice was served on the op at Karnal. The claim has also been repudiated vide repudiation letter Ex.C2 by op. The complainant has also admitted in his complaint that there is no office of opposite party at Sirsa. Moreover, the accident took place in the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu (Rajasthan). Though during the course of arguments, learned proxy counsel for complainant has strongly contended that policy was purchased through online and due intimation was given to the agent of the op at Sirsa well in time but the complainant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his plea of online purchase of the policy at Sirsa nor he has furnished affidavit of the alleged agent regarding receiving of information from the complainant qua the accident nor said agent has been impleaded as a party to the present complaint. So, it appears from the evidence of the complainant that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant in the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Sirsa. As such present complaint does not appear to be maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

7.                In view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction but with no order as to costs. The complainant is however at liberty to approach the appropriate/ competent Forum for redressal of his grievance and may seek exemption of time during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum as per law. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Forum.                  Member                      President,

Dated:27.12.2017.                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Sirsa.