Haryana

Ambala

CC/4/2015

Mamo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lomard General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Mewa Singh

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 04 of 2013

                                                        Date of instt:   06.01.2015

                                                        Date of decision:23.10.2017

 

Mamo Devi @ Mano Devi wife of Hawa Singh resident of VPO Chandana Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

 

                                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

1.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company ltd. vikas Vihar       Shopping complex Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

2.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company company ltd. through its               Divisional Manager, SCO – 501 2^nd floor sector 70 Mohali (PB), 160060.

3.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company ltd. through its authorized   signatory regd. Office: ICICI Bank Towers Bandra Kurla complex, Mumbai-          400051, India.

                                                                         …Opposite party.

 

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                Sh. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                SH. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:-     Sh. Mewa Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for Ops.

                                                                                

Order:-

 

                   In nutshell, the brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had insured the vehicle bearing No.HR-04M-5767 vide policy bearing NO.3005/65299798/00/000 and same was stolen on 11.06.2012 and the complainant has lodged FIR bearing No.52 dated 11.06.2012 under Section 379 IPC P.S. Alewa Distt. Jind and to this effect branch office of OP was also dully informed. Further submitted that the police searched the stolen motor cycle but the same was not found any where till date and now the police of P.S. Alewa has submitted the untraced report before the Court of Sh. Mewa Singh, learned JMIC, Jind on 22.02.2013. Further submitted that the complainant is entitled to claim the compensation of the stolen motor cycle as per the terms and conditions of the policy but the Ops without application of mind the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on 14.03.2013 on the false ground that there has been a delay in intimation of 3 days to the police authority and delay of 146 days in intimation to the Insurance Company rather the complainant has mentioned the cause of delay in the notice dated 22.03.2013 and thereafter the Ops created new false ground with a view to deny the genuine claim of the complainant. There is great deficiency in service on the part of the Ops because the Ops sent notices/letters dated 04.02.2013 and 14.03.2013 is contradictory and the complainant has suffered a mental agony, physically harassment and financial loss due to the above said illegal act on the part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed the written statement submitted that the complainant has not fulfill the terms and conditions as such the complainant is not entitled for any claim and as per the documents and version intimated by the complainant to the OPs that vehicle was stolen on 08.06.2012 and FIR was registered regarding theft of the vehicle on 11.06.2012, thus there is three days delay in registration of FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that during this period of three days, the complainant neither approached Insurance Company nor gave any information regarding theft of vehicle within reasonable time to the police authority and due to this negligence, the police authorities as been deprived off the chances to trace out the stolen vehicle immediately and to investigate the fact of the theft. Moreover, insured vehicle was stolen on 08.06.2012 and the complaint/intimation regarding theft insured vehicle to the insurance company on 01.11.2012, thus delay of 146 days in intimating the theft to the Insurance Company. It is the paramount duty and it is the terms and condition of the policy that insured shall lodged the claim immediately after the theft of the vehicle but the complainant neither has approached the insurance company in reasonable time of lodging the claim nor gave information regarding theft of vehicle. Further submitted that the Insurance Company has been deprived of their statutory right to take appropriate action of insured vehicle immediately and the Insurance company as per rules and regulations have also intimated about this fact vide letter dt. 14.03.2013, 04.02.2013 and 28.10.2013. Further submitted that the OPs have also got investigated the matter from M/s Grover Associates who had investigated the matter and submitted his report vide No.G/AS/2012/2012 dt. 24.12.2012 in which investigator had specifically mentioned that incident has occurred due to the negligence of the concerned person besides other things as it has come in the investigation that the motorcycle was left locked in open space by side of entrance door and the said house was under construction and without door and the key was left in open and easily approachable place and as such the culprits had easy access to the key of the motorcycle and tool the motorcycle and fled away as such there was no element of force has been used to take way the motor cycle besides this delay in reporting the matter, which is one of violation on terms and condition of policy conditions. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. On the other hand OP also tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-A along with document as Annexure R-1 and R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the branch office of the insurance company is situated at Ambala and the present compliant is relating to the settlement of the claim arising out of the stolen of the vehicle in question which was insured with the OPs, therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance of case laws titled as United India Insurance Company & Anr. Vs. Charan Dass 2008 (2) CLT 268 (UT State Commission), P.D.Memorial Religious & Education Association Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Another 2009 (1) CLT (UT State Commission) and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Kewal Krishan Kampani 2007 (1) CLT (Punjab State Commission).

                             On the other hand, counsel for OP has argued that neither the complainant had purchased insurance policy from the branch of OP No.1 situated at Ambala City nor he had made any correspondence with it and even the vehicle in question was also stolen in the area of Alewa, district, Jind and FIR got registered in the P.S. Alewa, Jind. So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as neither policy was issued at Ambala nor any theft had taken place at Ambala.

4.                          After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is clear that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action to have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Forum because mere having a branch office does not fulfill the requirement of jurisdiction as enumerated in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present case neither the complainant had purchased insurance policy from the branch of OP No.1 situated at Ambala City nor he had made any correspondence with it and even the vehicle in question was also stolen in the area of Alewa, district, Jind.  The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are not helpful to the case of the complainant, therefore, same are being distinguished. Therefore, in the light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 titled as Sonic Surgical Vs.National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010(1) Consumer Law Today page 252, we hold that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction and thus we have no option except to dismiss the same in limine.  However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the Forum having the jurisdiction. The complainant can have all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and the office is also directed to handover the same, if any, attached with the complaint against proper receipt & identification and after placing photocopy of the same on the case file. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant, free of cost, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room accordingly.

 

Announced on: 23.10.2017                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member