Delhi

New Delhi

CC/750/2015

Gurvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/750/2015                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

MR. GURVINDER SINGH,

123, KALYAN VIHAR,

NEW DELHI-110009.

 

              ……..COMPLAINANT

    

VERSUS

  

   HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

   BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

   NEW DELHI-1.

  

  

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

MEMBER: H M VYAS

                               

The complainant has filed this complaint against OP HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. alleging deficiency of service. After the mediation failed the counsel for the complainant addressed argument for admission. During the arguments the issue of territorial jurisdiction emerged. The Ld counsel states that the vehicle no./ DL-09-CY 5031 (Swift D’Zire) is insured for Rs. 5 Lac and has valid policy till 23/12/2012 issued in favour of the complainant near Kankar Khera (Meerut) when the driver of complainant was driving the car, it hit a wall nearby to save a cow and fell into the fields and got damaged. Matter reported to the Police Station Kankar Khera, Meerut and also to OP and made a claim of Rs. 5 lac against the OP. The OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the car was sold to one Sh. Balbir Singh. It is stated by Ld Counsel that the policy was issued from Bombay office. The complainants address in of Kolyam Vihar and the cause of action arose in Meerut where the mishap took place. The treatment of the injured driver taken in Meerut and then at Mathura Road, Mohan Cooperation Industrial Estate, Delhi.

         In Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/10/2009, relied upon by Ld. Counsel for OP-1, the following observations were made:

 

“Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17 (2) t he complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the Ld.Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will 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.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79] In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

 

 

From the above position neither the policy was taken within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor any cause of action arose.

 

In view of the above we are of the considered view that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint held accordingly. Therefore, the complaint is directed to be returned to the complainant with enclosures against acknowledgment. A copy of the complaint be kept on records. Liberty is granted to the complainant to file the complaint before competent Forum in accordance with law.

    

This order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in). A copy each of this order each be sent to complainant free of cost by post.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on …………………….

 

 

 

 (S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)                                     (NIPUR CHANDANA)

                                                             MEMBER                                                          MEMBER