Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/764/2015

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Shubham Arora

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 764 /2015

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional office – Near LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Darshan Singh & Jeet Kaur both r/o village Sehsan Tehsil Pahari Distt. Bharatpur at present c/o Gurmeet Singh Omkar Battries, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 22.3.2016

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr..Sanjiv Arora counsel for the appellants

Mr.Shailendra Khandelwal counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Jaipur 3^rd dated 18.5.2015 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellants.

 

The main contention of the appellant is that policy has been taken from Gwalior (MP), accident also occurred in the same jurisdiction inspite of this claim has been filed in Jaipur only on the ground that legal notice has been issued by the complainant from Jaipur and his other contention is that Forum below has allowed 15% interest and simultaneously Rs. 1 lakh as compensation which is allowing the double relief which is not permissible.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that as notice has been issued from Jaipur and he is residing in Jaipur hence, the Jaipur Forum was having territorial jurisdiction.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

The policy has been submitted by both the parties which clearly suggest that it was issued from Jayendra Ganj, Gwalior (MP). Accident has also taken place in the jurisdiction of Chanderi Police Station (MP) which is clear from the FIR No.

 

3

 

274/08 and reliance has rightly been placed on IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC) Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co., IV (2012) CPJ 821 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Vs. Lasa Footwear and I (2010) CPJ 73 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Vs. Pavel Garg.

 

The contention of the respondent is that as the branch office of the Insurance Company is situated in Jaipur hence, the claim has rightly been preferred in Jaipur but in New India Insurance Co. Vs. Lasa Footwear (supra ) the Hon'ble National Commission has clearly held that expression 'branch office' amended in Sec. 17 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act would mean the branch office where cause of action has arisen and admittedly no cause of action in the present case has arisen wholly or in part in the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Forum.

 

The respondent has relied upon the judgment in Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Co. passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10/2016 where the matter was in relation to Motor Vehicle Act and provision of Sec.166 has been explained where the claim could be preferred within the jurisdiction of the court where the claimant resides but in the present matter there is no such provision in Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

4

 

Hence, in view of the above the award passed is without territorial jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

 

The appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 18.5.2015 is set aside.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm