BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:172 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 11.06.2015.
Date of Decision:.11.09.2017
Karambir son of Sh. Sumer, Jat by caste, resident of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai.
- Indusind Bank Ltd., Branch Office Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri Abhishek Panwar, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata Motors Canter bearing registration no. HR-61A/8763 in the name of complainant, having engine no. 856680 and chasis no. 44579, mfg. year 2011 for the purpose of public carrier. It is alleged that this vehicle was also got insured with OP no. 1 vide policy no. 3379/00638364/000/02 for a period from 25.10.2013 to 24.10.2014. It is alleged that above said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by unknown person on 09/10.10.2014 at about 5.30 a.m. It is alleged that when complainant woke up in the morning, complainant did not find his above said vehicle at the above mentioned place. It is alleged that the complainant enquired about his vehicle from the neighbours, but he could not trace out his vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant gave information to the OP no. 1 to this effect telephonically, on which a claim no. 3379124707 was given by OP no. 1 and thereafter, as per the requirement of the OP no. 2, complainant had submitted the photocopies of FIR, registration certificate of stolen vehicle and untraced report. The complainant lodged his complaint to OP no. 1 to settle the same as per the terms and conditions of the policy but OP no. 1 did not settle the claim and in turn, a letter dated 22.1.2015 was received by complainant from OP no. 1. The complainant visited many a times to the office of OP no. 1 and made various reminders but the OP no. 1 failed to settle the claim of complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.5.2015 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was not parked at a duly safeguarded place and complainant failed to safeguard the insured property which amounts to violation of conditions no. 5 of policy and FIR was not lodged immediately to make recovery impossible and company was also not informed immediately after occurrence which amounts to violation of policy. It is submitted that answering respondent have no responsibility to compensate the complainant in this case as there is a clear cut stepwise violation of policy, no immediate information to the company, no immediately lodging of FIR, not parking the vehicle at a properly safeguarded place and leaving the key in the vehicle as such claim is not payable one. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the agreement was executed between the parties and complaint had signed the same after going through the contents therein. It is submitted that answering respondent bank is not liable to pay any theft claim and it is only the insurance company who is only liable to pay claim towards insurance policy. It is submitted that there is no any deficiency in service on behalf of the answering respondent bank after considering all facts as mentioned in reply and no any notice as alleged in para was ever received by answering respondent bank. It is submitted that the complainant had cleared this loan account on 11.5.2015 and NOC of this loan amount had already issued to complainant on 11.5.2015 and now there is no any dispute regarding theft claim of the vehicle. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsels for OPs have tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 9/10.10.2014 and FIR No. 720 dated 17.10.2014 was lodged with the concerned police station under Section 379 IPC. The complainant also gave intimation regarding the theft of his vehicle to the OP no. 1. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs but the OPs did not pay the claim to the complainant. The OP illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.1.2015. He submitted that the OPs are liable to pay the claim to the complainant with interest and cost .
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle for the loss or damage and the vehicle left unattended without taking precaution to prevent the damage and loss. He submitted that the vehicle was parked in an unprotected and unsafe place and the key of the vehicle was also left under the driver seat of the vehicle. The counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant himself admitted this fact. He further submitted that there is delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR. The theft of the vehicle took place due to the negligence of the complainant and the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs vide repudiation letter dated 22.1.2015 Annexure R-7.
9. The counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of the reply.
10. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record, carefully. The theft in question took place at Jhajjar outside the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum at Bhiwani. The complainant has taken the insurance policy from OP no. 1 who is having its business place at Chennai. We find that in para no. 13 of the preliminary objection of the written statement filed by the OP no. 1, the OP no. 1 has taken the objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction because no cause of action has arisen to the complainant at Bhiwani and the policy in question was also not issued from Bhiwani. In this regard, the reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC Limited (2010) 1 SCC 135, in which it was held that this District Forum/State Commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide a complaint in the territorial jurisdiction of which, cause of action arisen to the complainant. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction without going into the merits of the case. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 11.09.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
