DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRU
Complaint No. 520
Instituted on: 30.08.2016
Decided on: 20.02.2017
1. Jasvir Kaur aged about 44 years wife of Baljit Singh;
2. Baljit Singh son of Gurdial Singh, both residents of Village Dola Singh Wala, Ugrahan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
…Complainants
Versus
1. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor, SCO 5-6, PUDA Complex, Court Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. Sutlaj Tractors, Near Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jakhal Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its proprietor.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainants : Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.
For OP No.1 : Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.
For OP No.2 : Shri S.K.Kansal, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Smt. Jasvir Kaur and Shri Baljit Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that in the month of July, 2015, son of the complainants, namely, Manvir Singh purchased Swaraj 855 tractor from OP number 2 and at that time the OP number 2 being the agent of OP number 1 got insured the said tractor from OP number 1 vide policy number 2015-M0279351FRP for the period from 13.7.2015 to 12.7.2016. The said tractor was insured for Rs.2,50,000/- and the son of the complainant was insured for Rs.2,00,000/- under personal accident policy. Further case of the complainant is that on 31.12.2015, son of the complainants along with Sukhwinder Singh son of Ajaib Singh was returning to his village after selling the straw at Muzaffarnagar on tractor trolley bearing number PB-13-A-7752 which was being driven by Sukhwinder Singh at normal speed and the son of the complainant was taking the rest in the trolley. Further case of the complainant is that at about 8.15 PM, when they reached near Modern Punjabi Dhaba, then in the meantime an Alto car bearing registration number HR-05AC-3555 came from the backside and struck into the trolley by bringing the same on wrong side, as a result of which Manvir Singh sustained multiple injuries and died, of which FIR number 14 dated 5.1.2016 was lodged at PS Sadar Karnal. As such, after that an intimation was given to the Op number 2, who further intimated OP number 1 about the claim. The complainant submitted all the documents regarding the loss of the tractor as well as regarding the personal accident, but nothing happened despite all this. Further the complainant got repaired the tractor by spending the amount of Rs.50,000/- and requested the OPs to release the claim amount, but all in vain. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon OP number 2 on 17.3.2016, but of no use. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under personal accident claim on account of death of Manvir Singh and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of repair of the tractor and apart from that claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable being premature as the complainants did not approach the OP nor lodged any claim, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and that the complainants have concealed material facts and that the complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been denied that the vehicle in question met with an accident with any Alto car in the PS Sadar area Karnal on 31.12.2015 as alleged in the complaint. Further the complainants have themselves mentioned in the complaint that the tractor was being driven by Sukhwinder Singh and Manvir Singh was taking rest in the trolley, as such the deceased was not covered under the personal accident claim. It is further stated that since the complainants never lodged any claim with the Ops, as such the complaint is premature. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
3. In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainants has no locus standi and cause of action, that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the tractor in question, however, it is denied that the OP number 2 is the agent of OP number 1. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 copies of bills, Ex.C-10 copy of FIR, Ex.C-11 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-12 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-15 copy of DL, Ex.C-16 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of comprehensive policy, Ex.OP/3 copy of terms and conditions and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of reply to the legal notice, Ex.OP2/3 postal receipts and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
6. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainants never lodged any claim with the OP and further the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, as the policy in question was taken by the complainant at Jalandhar, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record Ex.OP1/2 and further perusal of the policy reveals that the same was sold directly by Op number 1 to the complainant and not through OP number 2. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the OP number 1 that no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the District Sangrur. It is also on record that the accident took place in the territorial jurisdiction of District Karnal Haryana and the policy in question was purchased at Jalandhar. Thus, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complaint being false and filed with malafide intention by narrating the wrong facts be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. Further the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainants never lodged any claim with the OPs. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the complainants ever lodged any claim with the OP regarding the accidental death of Shri Manvir Singh. As such, without further going into the merits of the case, we find that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
7. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainants. However, the complainants are at liberty to seek remedy before the competent court of law, if they so desired. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
February 20, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
