Item No. 25

CC No.-41/2024      [Sazid Ali Vs. HDFC ERGO General  Insurance Co. Ltd]

16.05.2024 - Order

Inder Jeet Singh, President

Present- Complainant in person.

1.  On 22.03.2024 the complainant’s counsel Sh. Harvir Singh, Advocate was heard on the point admissibility of complaint including on point of territorial jurisdiction of present Central District on the subject complaint. It is scheduled for order today, since Coram is complete today but it was incomplete w.e.f. 01.04.2024 till 06.05.2024.

2. The  complaint was filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against  HDFC ERGO General  Insurance Co. Ltd, arraying Office at Mumbai & Corresponding office Jhandewalan, New Delhi on ground of deficiency of service for want of settlement of personal accident claim covered under the insurance policy. A legal notice dated 14.10.2023 was also sent to OP at its Mumbai office and corresponding office at Sector-62 at Noida, UP but no result. That is why complaint was filed.

3. Shri Harvir Singh, Advocate, for complainant submitted Corporate office of OP  is situated at Jhhandewalan, New Delhi, Central District  as mentioned in the memo of parties  which is within area of DCDRC Central District, thus it has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

            It was enquired, what are the documentary record and as to how the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is made out. Then, Ld. Counsel has been to the insurance policy (page-10 & 11) that it was obtained online. Secondly, the office of OP is located in Jhhandewalan, New Delhi this also makes out the jurisdiction. Then it was enquired what cause of action had arisen in the area of Jhhandewalan office of OP, again the insurance policy obtained online is referred.   

4.1 (Finding) -  The contentions presented are considered by looking into the facts and features of complainant, the documents filed and the provisions of section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 [regarding Jurisdiction of the District Commission], then following conclusions are drawn-

(i) The complainant is resident of Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustfabad, North-East District, Delhi-110094, which is so mentioned in  array of the complaint and its supporting affidavit,  This area is not within the area of jurisdiction  of CDRC Central District but under jurisdiction of the North-East District, which is manifest from the address of complainant,

(ii) The complainant was issued insurance policy (at page 10-11), it mentions OP's address of Mumbai but no other address vis a vis there is no fact in the complaint about the place of online policy was taken; thus none of such places are situated within the area of CDRC Central District.

(iii) The legal notice was sent to OP at its Mumbai office and corresponding office at Sector-62, Noida, the same are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this DCDRC Central District.

(iv) There is no fact mentioned in the complaint about the place of arising the cause of action to be within the area of present Commission. However, para-3 of the legal notice mentions claim number about claim lodged  with the addressees (i.e.  Mumbai office and Noida office) , which infers that it was being dealt with them.

 (v) The para-10 of the complaint is regarding territorial jurisdiction but it just mentions in a general way that the Commission has jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, but without the facts to manifest jursidiction.  However, aforementioned circumstances does not spell out the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

(vi) The complaint does not satisfy the requirement of section 34 Act 2019 for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of CDRC Central District Delhi to proceed with the complaint.

(vii) Thus, for want of territorial jurisdiction of CDRC Central District on this subject matter either on the basis of lack of cause of action, or address of complainant within the jurisdiction of this Commission or branches of OP within the jurisdiction of this Commission,  the complaint cannot be proceeded with.

4.3. In view of above conclusion, for want of territorial jurisdiction with the present CDRC Central District, the present complaint is to be returned to the complainant to present it before competent Commission or Forum as per law if so advised, without prejudice to rights of complainant under the law.  The complainant shall take back the present complaint forthwith and in case he does not take the file back, then complaint and record will be consigned to record room. (a certificate of return of the complaint is being issued on the face of the complaint). Dasti. Complainant refuses to take the copy of this dasti order with request that his counsel will take it.

                             [Rashmi Bansal]                                           [Inder Jeet Singh]

                                      Member (Female)                                                        President

[ijs-59]