View 46125 Cases Against General Insurance
View 4432 Cases Against Cholamandalam
View 1207 Cases Against Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance
Rajiv Kumar filed a consumer case on 14 Oct 2024 against Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/490/2024 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Oct 2024.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint.No.490 of 2024
Date of instt. 09.10.2024
Date of Decision: 14.10.2024
1. Rajiv Kumar son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of VPO Nathupur, District Sonipat 131029.
2. Vicky wife of Shri Rajiv Kumar son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of VPO Nathupur, District Sonipat 131029.
...…Complainants
Versus
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch DSS, SCO 193, Sector-12, Karnal.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 2463-2464, IInd Floor, Sector-22-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
3. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited (Formally known as Equitas Finance Ltd.) Having its registered office at 4th Floor, Phase-II, Spencer Plaza, 769, Anna Saai, Chennai 600002, Branch Office at Sector-6, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.
Mrs.Neeru Agarwal…….Member
Mrs.Sarvjeet Kaur..……… Member.
Present: Shri Kavita Dutt, counsel for the complainant.
Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that vehicle i.e. Eicher 1114 H FSD RHD bearing registration No.HR69D-6316 was financed by OP No.3, for a loan amount of Rs.16,46,813/- and the said vehicle was insured by OPs No.1 & 2 in the name of complainant for an IDV of Rs.16,62,500/-. On 08.06.2020, the vehicle in question has been stolen by an unknown person. FIR in this regard was lodged and intimation was given to the OPs. Complainant lodged the claim but despite repeated requests the OPs did not release the claim amount. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Arguments on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.
4. Now, the question arises for consideration whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not?
4. The complainants are residing at Village Nathupur, District Sonipat. The vehicle in question has been stolen in the area of Ashok Vihar, District Rohtak. As per covernote attached with the complaint, the policy in question has been issued at Chandigarh. The present complaint has been filed by the complainants before this Commission on the ground that the Branch Office of the OPs is situated at Karnal. Only branch office of the OPs situated at Karnal, does not mean this Commission is having jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. In this regard, we relied upon the case law titled as Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC, 2010(1) CLT page 252, wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that branch office does not 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. The expression ‘branch office’ would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Thus, this Commision is having no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.
5. Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limine being not maintainable before this Commission. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.
Dated: 14.10.2024.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Neeru Agarwal) (Sarvjeet Kaur)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.