CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110001
Case No.C.C./561/2016 Dated:
In the matter of:
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
S/o Late B.L. Mishra,
R/o C-4/T, Delhi Police Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110091
Also At:
Chamber No. 88, Lawyers’ Chambers,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi-110001
..…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
401 & 402, 4th Floor, Interface 11, New Linking Road,
Malad(West), Mumbai-400064
Through its Deputy General Manager.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
No. 23, IIIrd Floor, Narain Manzil,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
Through the Regional Manager
3. K.M. MOTORS,
H-24, Sector-63, Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar U.P.
Through Shri Narendra Sharma
........... OPPOSITE PARTIES
ORDER
MEMBER : H.M. VYAS
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against OP Insurance Company and K.M. Motors, claiming the following reliefs against the OP insurance company:
- Grant compensation of Rs. 14,34,893 alongwith interest and damages pendente lite to the complainant for deficiency in service and willful and deliberate default of respondents in honoring the claim of the complainant; and
- Impose heavy penalty on the respondents for their failure to provide quick and timely resolution to the complainant;
- Direct the respondent No. 1 and 3 to hand over complainant’s car in the same condition as it was handed over to them on 11/5/15; and
- Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’nble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question of the admission of complaint and also jurisdiction whether this District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
The car in question was insured by the complainant and insurance policy was taken from OP-1 based in Mumbai. The accident with the insured car in question occurred in 11/5/15 in Greater Noida - Noida expressway. The correspondence regarding insurance claim was done by the complainant with the Mumbai Office of the OP and legal notice dated 7/10/15 was also issued to the OP Insurance Company at Mumbai Office. Therefore no part of cause of action occurred within territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. Merely because one of the office of the OP Insurance Company is situated within jurisdiction of this District Forum does not attract.
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.”
In Rajan Kapoor versus Estate Officer and another Revision Petition No. 1100 of 2011 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 4/11/2011 and relied upon by Ld.Counsel for the OP-1, the following observations were made:
“Having considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that no cause of action accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of the District Forum of Panchkula, in as much as application for allotment was made by the complainant to the Estate Officer HUDA at Ambala and correspondence was also exchanged with the said Estate Officer. Even if one or two letters/ representations were addressed by the complainant to the Chief Administrator HUDA, it would not make a difference because by doing so it cannot be said that any cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of Panchkula District Forum. We are, therefore, of the view that order of the State Commission so far as it directed the complainant- petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum of competent jurisdiction, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Forum shopping cannot be allowed by a party.”
In Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd versus Kone Elevator's India Private limited, and another I (2000. 16) CPJ 190 (NC), the plea of the complainant that cause of action arose when, legal notice was sent to opposite party was not accepted, and it was held that merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action, nor does it extend the period of limitation.
In the light of the above case law it is amply clear that the complainant is required to file the complaint before the District Forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action arose coupled with the fact that head office and the branch office of the company in question is also situated. Mere sending of a legal notice or one or two letters to the head office of OP one would not constitute cause of action or attract the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum in the light of a Rajan Kapoor's case (supra) and Jansatta Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd's case (supra). In the present case, the insurance policy in question was issued by the Mumbai office of the OP insurance company. The insurance claim was lodged at the Mumbai Office of the OP insurance company. Therefore, cause of action partly or wholly has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum and mere fact that the one of the offices of the OP insurance company is situated within territorial jurisdiction of this district Forum does not attract the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum in the light of sonic surgical's case (supra) and Rajan Kapoor's case (supra). Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.
In view of the above discussion the complaint, be returned to the complainant against receipt along with court fee, and documents filed with the complaint for presentation before competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after obtaining copies of the complainant documents.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost by post. This order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum on 20/10/2016.
(S K SARVARIA)
PRESIDENT
(H M VYAS) (NIPUR CHANDNA)
MEMBER MEMBER
