Delhi

StateCommission

RP/144/2018

PARAS LUBRICANTS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH SINGH CHAUDHARY

15 Jan 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :15.01.2019

Date of Decision : 30.01.2019

REVISION PETITION NO.144/2018

In the matter of:

 

M/s. Paras Lubricants Ltd,

Having its Head/ registered office at

311-312, Manglam Paradise,

Plot No.8, Manglam Place,

Sec.3, Rohini, Delhi-85.

Through its Directors/ Authorized Signatory.                                          Petitioner

 

 

Versus

 

M/s. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

14.  

Kasturba Gandhi marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

Having registered/ Corporate office at:

 

1.  

165-166 Bckbay, Reclamation,

H.T. Parekh Marg, Church Gate,

1.  

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The petitioner was complainant before District Forum. He has challenged order dated 19.11.18 passed by District Forum, New Delhi in CCNo.396/18 vide which the complaint was directed to be returned for presenting  before concerned District Forum in accordance with law.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he got his Hyundai car  no.DL-09-CAE-5399 insured with OP under private car comprehensive policy w.e.f.17.11.17 to 16.11.18. On 13.03.18 the Director of the complaiannt alongwith his driver  went from Delhi to Kosi Kalan, Mathura. When they were coming back to Delhi and reached near Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura, driver stopped the car for urinal purpose. The Director of complainant was sitting in the car, suddenly a car came from wrong side and hit the complainant’s car. Due to said impact the Director moved back the said car and in the meantime, a bus had also bluntly hit the said car. As a result, the alleged vehicle got badly damaged and the Director of the complainant was also badly injured.
3. The complainant sent accidental car to authorised service centre at Gurgaon, Haryana.. The intimation of the accident was given to the OP by the service centre and lodged the claim. The OP appointed an investigating agency M/s. Eminent Support Services Pvt. Ltd. as Surveyor, who made his visit at the house of Director of complainant. The Surveyor conducted  the spot survey of accidental car. The complainant had provided all the required documents to the OP for settling the claim but OP had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 12.04.18 on the ground that the complainant misrepresented the cause of loss. Complainant sent letter dated 20.06.18 requesting OP to provide the ground on which it cancelled the claim. OP did not respond. OP issued cheque for Rs.11,006/- without giving any reasons but complainant did not present the same and the cheque is still lying with it.
4. The District Forum asked the petitioner/ complainant to satisfy as to how it had territorial jurisdiction. The counsel for petitioner submitted that since office of OP was situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, the OP was working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, New Delhi, so it had jurisdiction. 
5. The District Forum found that policy was issued from Mumbai, cause of action  arose at Kotwan Kosi Kalan, Mathura which do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of said forum. Accordingly the complaint was directed to be returned.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Forum wrongly relied upon decision of National Commission in R.p.No.575/18 titled as Prem Joshi vs. Jurasik Park Inn dated 01.03.18. In that case the Forum had observed that ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by complainant by online in his office in karol Bagh. So it was the District Forum at Tis Hazari which had the territorial jurisdiction. The National Commission held that since tickets were allegedly  purchased at the office of complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh would have the requisite jurisdiction.
7. I do not  find as to how the District Forum has mis-applied the sad decision. In the case in hand the policy was issued from Mumbai office and the accident of the alleged vehicle took place at Kotwan, Kosi Kalan, Mathura. Thus District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Mumbai or Mathura would have the jurisdiction.
8. There is no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The revision is dismissed in limine.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. One copy of the order sent to District Forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                                                                        (O.P. GUPTA)                                                    

                                                                                                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)